Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Alexander the Great was antiquity\'s greatest commander
Quote:He conquered Afganistan.
I think you are using the same definition of "conquer" as George W "Mission Accomplished" Bush. Alexander had exactly the same trouble in Afghanistan as the Soviets and NATO today.

This is a brief analysis and comparison.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/102487
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
Please Dan... American Chronicles? A funny analysis indeed...

"Alexander like President Bush inherited Middle East crisis from his father Philip II, who felt threatened by the growing power of Persia similar to Saddam´s increasing influence in the Middle East. "

So, according to this writer, Persia started becoming powerful sometime during Philip's reign and Philip, already a superpower, was annoyed by that...

"Being the superpower of the time.."

Macedonia was the superpower of the time ???? Is he so desperate to make his point?

"The Persian Empire was bordered by Afghanistan and Pakistan, whose tribes nominally accepted Darius but were free to follow their religion and traditions."

As if the rest of the conquered peoples under the Persians did not enjoy these rights? Another desperate effort to make the peoples residing in ancient Afghanistan look ferociously free...

"Alexander vowed to save civilization"

What is he talking about? Has he seen the 300 one too many times?

"Alexander was imposing an infidel culture on the local traditions through fire and blood that was not acceptable to them. "

Alexander did not impose any culture upon them...

"The local tribes fought for their survival; while Alexander wrestled for the stability of his empire."

? The local tribes indeed sometimes fought for their survival but how did he come to the conclusion that Alexander wrestled for the stability of his empire? Especially when he also admits that "For Alexander´s generals, Afghanistan was less than a top priority"

Anyways... these are only some comments regarding less than half of this "analysis... A very desperate and sad effort indeed to produce a parallel... And I am not saying that the Afghan tribes of the time did not fight valiantly or engage in guerrilla warfare, just that this particular text is not really worth reading...
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
I don't know why people keep suggesting that Alexander was a "spoilt brat" or why that is even relevant.

Specifically on his army, yes it was great and he did inherit it from Philip, but he showed consummate tactical skill in its use, adding in his own variations. It's also worth mentioning that the Persians did have a pretty decent army themselves.
Reply
How anybody could possibly compare George W. Bush with Alexander III is quite beyond my comprehension.

Bush will go down in history as certainly the worst president ever to occupy the White House - undoubtedly one of the most incompetent - and undeniably one of the most stupid and ignorant morons ever to rise to any position of authority. I am completely aghast that anybody ever gave this idiot the time of day, nevermind voting for him. He is utterly resented in many parts of the world and did huge damage to America's good name around the globe ... a place he had rarely visited. When you consider some of the great men who occupied that most powerful of offices (Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln/Roosevelt) it is truely shameful that such a nonentity should be allowed access...

He was clearly a puppet for a Cheney dominated administration and laughably has his memoirs published this week. I would like to know who wrote it for him - or certainly who helped him with any big words (his grasp of the English language is below that of most 10 year olds)? It is also amusing that his admissions to being OK with torture etc. now place him liable to be arrested in many other countries should he ever venture forth - but I guess he is reasonably safe since his narrow-minded parochial views suggest he is unlikely to venture out of Texas much - nevermind into the wider world.

At least Alexander got on his horse and ventured forth with his troops. For all his faults he did build cities, instigate trade, order explorations, and attempt to build a consensus based upon cultural harmony and integration. Alexander was a scholar and a singular man of charisma and vision.

Bush represents what happens when the f*cking cretins are allowed to rise to the top ... let's hope it doesn't happen again :roll:
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
Quote:
hoplite14gr:s6zr9rqg Wrote:He conquered Afganistan.
I think you are using the same definition of "conquer" as George W "Mission Accomplished" Bush. Alexander had exactly the same trouble in Afghanistan as the Soviets and NATO today.

This is a brief analysis and comparison.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/102487

Well the Greco-Bactrian kingoms that survived up to the time of the Kushan Empire are proof that the "brat" made it.
The coins were minted in Greek system and Greek was official language.

Tamerlan just passed and lost half his army
The British were whacked in Kyber
The Soviets had enough and quit (lost!)
And the US-led motley crew doesn't seem in very good health lately

Kind regards
Reply
Could Alexander have beaten Alexander? The only way to judge a worth of commander, as opposed to the military system he enherited or created, would be to do what wargamers do all the time and simply put him in command of his foe's army against his own. In fact you, if you were Zeus, could have Alexander fight himself over and over again, and the resulting ration of losses to wins for each side would give you the "edge" that the military system alone provided no matter the leader.

Obviously fighting yourself is a problem, so lets say that Phillip's assasination fails and a disgruntled Alexander flees to Persia and is put in charge of the army (stranger things have happened). Does anyone think he has a prayer of victory? What do you think he would have done?
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
He would do what he knows. If he had complete control then he'd try and retrain and re-equip the Persians like the Macedonians. He'd lose because he doesn't have his father's innovation nor his father's generals Wink Actually he'd probably die in the first engagement because the first thing Philip would do is send the cavalry straight at him. Alexander's arrogance and recklessness would leave him in the front rank to be the first casualty.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
Quote:Could Alexander have beaten Alexander? The only way to judge a worth of commander, as opposed to the military system he enherited or created, would be to do what wargamers do all the time and simply put him in command of his foe's army against his own. In fact you, if you were Zeus, could have Alexander fight himself over and over again, and the resulting ration of losses to wins for each side would give you the "edge" that the military system alone provided no matter the leader.

Wargames replayed on Alexander's battles I have seen are generally Persian or Indian victories.
Reply
Quote: For all his faults he did build cities, instigate trade, order explorations, and attempt to build a consensus based upon cultural harmony and integration.

Quote:Arr. 4.2.3-4
As soon as Alexander arrived at Gaza, without any delay he gave the signal to his men to place the ladders against the wall all round and to take it by assault at once [...] They killed all the men, according to Alexander’s injunctions; but the women, the children, and the rest of the booty they carried off as plunder. Thence he immediately marched to the city situated next to that one; and this he took in the same way and on the same day, treating the captives in the same manner ... (4.3.5) The seventh city he took at the first assault. Ptolemy says that the men in it surrendered; but Aristobulus asserts that this city was also taken by storm, and that he slew all who were captured therein.

Having built “consensus”, Alexander then set about building cities, particularly “Alexandria Eschate”:

Quote:Curtius 7.6.25-27
The wall thus formed, sixty stades long, constituted the wall of a city, which the king also ordered should be called Alexandria. The work was so swiftly completed that the city buildings were finished on the seventeenth day after the fortifications were erected; fierce competition had arisen among the soldiers over who would be the first to display his completed project (for there had been a division of labour). Inhabitants for this new city were provided in the form of captives whom Alexander liberated by paying their value to their masters.

Little of any consensus built on “cultural harmony” here. Diodorus, in his summary of book 17, sums these “cities” up well when he notes that Alexander “founded cities in suitable places to restrain any who rebelled”.

Consensus and harmony building continued apace as the Indian campaign commenced:

Quote:Arr 4.23.5
The city had been surrounded with a double wall. At the second wall the barbarians stood their ground for a short time; but when the scaling ladders were now being fixed, and the defenders were being wounded with darts from all sides, they no longer stayed; but rushed through the gates out of the city towards the mountains. Some of them were killed in the flight, and the Macedon inns, being enraged because they had wounded Alexander, slew all whom they took prisoners.

The apologetic tradition is put into context by Diodorus – again in his summary – when he notes that these people (the Aspasians) suffered “complete annihilation of their [first] nation in order to overawe the rest”.

Quote:Alexander was a scholar and a singular man of charisma and vision.

Quote:He made these preparations of the fleet to attack the main body of the Arabs, under the pretext that they were the only barbarians of this region who had not sent an embassy to him or done anything else becoming their position and showing respect to him. But the truth was, as it seems to me, that Alexander was insatiably ambitious of ever acquiring fresh territory.

I doubt that I would disagree with Arrian’s view (7.19.6) of Alexander’s “vision” and purpose here. He seems on the money.
Paralus|Michael Park

Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους

Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!

Academia.edu
Reply
I have mentioned that he left a lot to be desired as a human being - which is judging him by modern standards. But judging him in the context of his times as a conqueror (and accepting everything that went with that), I still believe part of his goal was to create a harmonised empire that embraced the diverse peoples and traditions. In some respects he was continuing the policy that the Persians had promoted of strong empire - but pragmatic administration. His adoption of Persian dress and customs didn't exactly go down well with his Greek fellow travellers, nor perhaps the forced inter-marriages, nor the training of eastern troops into Makedonian style phalanxes - but I believe there was an attempt to create some kind of hybrid hellenic civilisation, incorporating the best of what he encountered grafted onto the spread of Greek culture. The building of cities occurs for many reasons - trade, protection of trade, supply bases etc., but does generally indicate a desire to stick around ... at least for a while. I suppose with Alexander, there was not enough time for things to settle down - and lacking the continuity of a successor to hold things together we'll never know how successful his empire might have been. We do know of course that he always planned to conquer all the non-Greek peoples and ultimately this would have led to the western Mediterranean.

It is true that much of this smacks of social engineering writ large. I am no particular fan of Alexander as a man - but it is hard not to be impressed by the scope of his ambition. Had I been an average Greek caught up in these times - I guess if I'd been from the central or southern states I might have been against him, but from the northern states I might well have been for him. I recognise I have strayed from the original premise here (antiquity's greatest commander) but with Alexander the Great, there are so many interconnected facets.

Alexandros III of Makedon is a complex character. On the one hand go the teachings of Aristotle ... on the other the dreams of Achilles. There is some kind of dichotomy there - always apparent in his behaviour; but perhaps to be expected from somebody rooted in such a dysfunctional family. Was he truly Philip's son or Olympias' son (I don't mean biologically)? Did he really believe himself to be the son of Zeus? He was rash and temperamental and hugely impulsive, and of course a drunk. Much of that might equate to his 'tribal' Makedonian side. But he was also keen on philosophy; reading; the arts and sciences; reasoned debate and acquiring knowledge. Unfortunately the business of strong self-belief, which propelled him on his crusade, and undeniable charisma led to paranoid megalomania and delusions of both grandeur and deity. He was manifest destiny personified. It is hard to think of another ancient leader from any society or era who accomplished so much and whose legacy remains even to this day. Hellenisation continued after his death; Alexandria (Egypt) prospered and flourishes over 2000 years later; his influence can still be detected in Indian culture and he is even mentioned in the Koran. That part of the world would be very, very different had he never led his great Greek enterprise out in search of glory and revenge.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
We seem to have drifted from "Alexander the commander" to an overall "Alexander the man". For me, the last two posts seem to sum up the man as a whole.Both are well thought out and deserve our late lamented laudes.

But what of Alexander the commander? What military obstacles did he overcome compared to a Hannibal or a Pyrrhus, for example? What military innovations did he introduce? What battle tactics? ( new or otherwise)? Did he even have a military strategy beyond; "The next field looks greener, therefore attack it, destroy it and loot it", only stopping when he actually met significant military resistance ( in India)?He was an undoubted megalamaniac, who in the end perhaps genuinely believed his achievements surpassed those of Dionysius and Heracles, and were worthy of a God, but when we strip away legend, what military skills did he demonstrate? As a ruler, perhaps he deserves the sobriquet "Great"; as a 'military commander', I think not.......Alexander was like Gengis Khan, the fortunate inheritor of a superior military system.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
Quote:We seem to have drifted from "Alexander the commander" to an overall "Alexander the man". For me, the last two posts seem to sum up the man as a whole.Both are well thought out and deserve our late lamented laudes.

But what of Alexander the commander? What military obstacles did he overcome compared to a Hannibal or a Pyrrhus, for example? What military innovations did he introduce? What battle tactics? ( new or otherwise)? Did he even have a military strategy beyond; "The next field looks greener, therefore attack it, destroy it and loot it", only stopping when he actually met significant military resistance ( in India)?He was an undoubted megalamaniac, who in the end perhaps genuinely believed his achievements surpassed those of Dionysius and Heracles, and were worthy of a God, but when we strip away legend, what military skills did he demonstrate? As a ruler, perhaps he deserves the sobriquet "Great"; as a 'military commander', I think not.......Alexander was like Gengis Khan, the fortunate inheritor of a superior military system.....

Alexander had to overcome many more challenges than Hannibal and Pyrrhus put together.

1. He inherited his kingdom at a very young age, so he had to first be able to convince his own men and then the rest of Greece and barbarian world that he was no puppy on a throne. With an iron hand he secured his position, earned his men's trust and love and the respect and fear of potential enemies and friends.

2. His campaigns soon brought him deep into the barbarian Balkans, where Phillip had never even thought of venturing before, clearly showing the extent of his ambition. He even crossed the Istros (Danube) and generally displayed shrewdness and remarkable ability in waging war against the number and variety of barbarian populations leaving in the north of Greece. Surely the tactics/strategemata he employed had little to do with those he used in the east against the Persians. As proof that he was not as "reckless" as we consider him to be (again forgetting how commanders of the era generally fought), he did not fight in the first line against the Illyrians, I don't remember him receiving wounds during that campaign nor did he storm himself any Greek city soon afterwards as he did later on. We can see how he fought the Illyrians, giving a reportedly stunning display of drill competence and then charge a terrified opponent, crossed the Danube in record time and against any expectations, used another successful stratagem to counter the Thracian carts rolling down the hill, quickly adopting to situations and even his swift comeback to Greece was no little deed. In so little time he succeded in practically terrorizing-subjugating-pacifying a huge region, a task no Greek ever had achieved before, Philip included. We generally tend to completely overlook this campaign, which proved his military, organizational, tactical and strategical genius and certainly armed him with invaluable experience and insight. The results of this campaign were critical as the barbarian threat was eliminated for many years to come. Even if for some reason Alexander had stopped there, getting murdered or something, he would still have been regarded as great as Philip...

3. Back in Greece he again showed political competence, he quickly and unequivocally crushed any thoughts of challenge, he (to my opinion) showed resoluteness and ability for administering strict punishment when he "did not object" to the raze of Thebes, keeping for himself the excuse that it was his allies who made the decision, a political and religious excuse that would have come handy if things did not go as planned. And then the preparation for his eastern campaign came...

Now, at this point we usually say "So, Alex took the army of his father, his father's tactics and generals and..." but

- Alexander and not Philip was the one who decided on the number and composition of the invading army. By now many of his generals (in the broad sense that we use the term in the Macedonian army of the era, more like commanders) were his and not Philip's Companions and allies. He had at his disposal troops that Philip did not, he had to learn how to field and co-ordinate them, how to use and keep them happy. The fact that he had devised a general plan of operation against Persians is evident in his first major battle at Granicus, where we can see the speed in which he completes a battleplan certainly different than any used against Greeks or Balkan barbarians.

- Alexander used his Companion cavalry in a way unattested in any battle of Philip. He had it accompanied by hamippoi, charge the enemy leaders (a very logical innovation since the Persian leaders were usually stationed in cavalry and not infantry units...), redeployed them from flank to flank according to need, kept them at reserve to guard against enemy light infantry, he generally used cavalry in a much more sophisticated way than any other Greek before him. But this is what he had to do to win, since cavalry was the arm of the enemy army he feared most. At Jaxartes, we see a huge tactical victory of Alexander against an opponent seemingly invulnerable and across a river (and not a stream as Granicus or Issus) that again had nothing to do with anything Philip ever had to deal with. Later on, his cavalry had to face and maneuver among elephants, again a challenge he came through victoriously. So, he adopted and used tactics his father did never devise or implement. And in the end, he also used Asian cavalry, even horse archers further broadening his scope of field tactics.

- Even his infantry tactics had to adopt to the changing circumstances. How many battles do we know of where Philip had to attack across a river or stream? At Gaugamela he used an oblique formation of phalangites along with a second line of heavy infantry moving obliquely... At Hydaspes he only used part of his phalanx in the main assault. His infantry faced chariot, cavalry and elephant assaults certainly prepared in advance as to how exactly they should deal with them. He often detached forces of Hypaspists, Comapnions and light infantry to quickly exploit opportunities. As for more details, he insisted that his men shave and cut their hair, he (according to Polyaenus) introduced the hemithorakion as his preferred armor, he may have made the sarissa longer, he surely was no stranger to innovation as further attested in his so-called "experimantal phalanx" which was of course not some experiment to change the phalanx but sheer adoption of a form of infantry array in order to fully exploit the tactical capabilities of a certain body of men against certain opponents.

4. As to challenges, Alexander had to face more and more varied opponents than Pyrrhus or Hannibal. He, of course, did not have to fight Romans, but :

- He fought Greeks (regular heavy spearmen with some competent cavalry)
- He fought Persians (less competent spearmen with a huge number of ligt troops archers, chariots, heavy and light cavalry)
- He fought Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians etc (Balkan barbarian, mainly infantry armies)
- He fought Scythians (purely light cavalry skirmishers)
- He fought Indians (spearmen, longbows, light chariots, trained war-elephants)
- He fought Phoenicians (regular spearmen)
- He fought a number of tribal armies in many places along the way...

Hannibal fought against Iberian barbarians and Romans, Pyrrhus against Greeks armed in the Macedonian fashion, hoplite Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians. One may claim that the Romans that Hannibal faced were by far the most competent army of all the above, another that Pyrrhus fought against equally competent Romans and sarissa armed armies. I would propose that it is always easy to attribute competence to those who won and incompetence to those who lost and as such decrease the fighting value of Alexander's enemies. Surely and objectively Alexander had to fight the most types of enemies under the most diverse of conditions, terrain etc.


- He fought against armies far stronger in number than his
- He fought against armies with seemingly tactical advantages (high grounds, rivers, open terrain - far less cavalry, mobility)
- He never is attested to have suffered defeat
- He never is attested to have lost an objective apart from moving on through India giving in to his men's wish to return.

Pyrrhus fought against armies usually as large as his, Hannibal also fought and won a great battle he had less army in (Cannae), although again we can diminish such a victory by whining about how the Roman army was incompetently commanded, hastily recruited etc . Hannibal showed extreme competence in fighting where he chose to, ambushing and obliterating Roman legions and getting advantageous positions in the battefields before the battle. Again one could propose that Alexander did not know how to get an advantageous battlefield and thus attribute his victories to fortune, but that is far from true. Alexander was the one seeking for battle as were the Romans against Hannibal. He who seeks battles usually has the disadvantage at the battlefield. On the contrary, Alexander showed remarkable ability to exploit every feature of the terrain, his army's capabilities and his enemies' weaknesses to turn his disadvantages into advantages. They both suffered defeat (Beneventum - Zama). They both lost many objectives, which strategically cost them the war...

- He had to fight or cross under enemy presence across streams (Granicus, Issus)
- ... sizable rivers (Hydaspes, Jaxartes, Istros)
- He had to march through hostile territories fit for ambush by the local barbrian enemies (Balkans, Afghanistan)
- He had to cross huge mountain ranges (the Hindokush) - a feat as great as Hannibal's crossing the Alps
- He had to march through deserts (Gedrosia)
- He took countless cities and fortresses by force and stratagem

Hannibal crossed the Alps, both have a very limited resume as experts in siege craft...

- He had to control vast areas
- He effectively annexed his conquests to his empire
- He had to secure his dominions as he campaigned on and deal with insurgents who wished to exploit his absence
- He organized an efficient administrative system to keep his exploits under control to produce supply and safeguard his supply lines in no time
- He built and organized countless cities to further establish his control
- He earned the respect/fear/love or better the obedience by any means of his newly conquered subjects

Hannibal was able to shift many Italians, Gauls and Greeks to his side but he easily lost control. He was unable to really keep open lines with Iberia. Pyrrhus was also unable to establish his hold over any of his dominions except his homeland. Italy, Sicilly, Macedonia... all were lost relatively quickly as was the support he enjoyed from his allies and subjects. Hannibal was not really a conqueror but he seems to have based his every ambition on destroying the Romans, Pyrrhus was a mercenary king with limited political ability. Both were also excellent commanders.

- He died still organizing more campaigns
- His body and memory was a prize for decades to come

Hannibal seems to have fallen into obscurity, a wanted man, never to rise again as a commander. Pyrrhus died in battle, not as honorably as he would have wanted but from a war wound, even if it was inflicted by an old woman with a roofing tile. Both were not really missed...

If Alexander was something that both Pyrrhus and Hannibal were not, this is successful. A megalomaniac? How do you define a "megalomaniac"? A man who feels the need to achieve great things? Then, yes, Alexander was one. But the word may also imply delusions of grandeur and certainly Alexander suffered from no delusions... I do not understand how Pyrrhus was not a "megalomaniac" or Hannibal just a "hate-driven idiot". In order to do great things or to be a conqueror one has to believe in oneself and have the drive necessary to go on. Alexander could have stopped in Byzantium... And Philip could have stopped at Thebes... Hannibal at the Alps, Pyrrhus in Greece, Caesar in Alesia, Napoleon in Austerlitz, Genghis Khan somewhere in Siberia... So what? Alexander was, like most such great men not a "megalomaniac" (a negatively charged term), just "megas". What about the deeds of Heracles and Dionysus? They both were not godly figures of myth but to Alexander and the Greeks of his time they were historical personas (they most probably were) who had campaigned to the east as Alexander did and were both not as successful as he was. They were later deified, as modern Christians ordain their saints. And what if Alexander wanted to be venerated as a God? So were so many other Greeks (and many more non-Greeks), even during their lives... And from all these, Alexander probably deserved this the most. To try to judge Alexander's apotheosis attempts with modern standards will really take us nowhere. According to our modern "humanitarian" ethical standards we pretend to believe in, he was a savage murderer and a delusional religious fanatic... And Caesar was a dictatorial fag and a mass murderer...

I do not understand how people can read about Alexander's countless battles and exploits and attribute them to luck?, other Generals? or some super powerful army that worked on its own... And while it is true that he in fact inherited a great army, I do not understand how this could be a factor, since so did most conquerors. Hannibal did not invent any new troops, nor did Pyrrhus, nor did Caesar or Leonidas. What makes anyone claim that we should only admire commanders of small, weak tribes with no military past? Those double standards seem to be very popular and I really do not understand them. If Scipio's problem was that Hannibal did not consider him a better commander, after Alexander and Pyrrhus, then how can we, learned arm-chair generals claim that Alexander not only does not deserve to be in that triad but that he was just a lucky megalomaniac mediocre commander who just happened to inherit a mighty army?
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Reply
An excellent and fair defence of Alexander......well put, and again worthy of a 'Laus' were we but able to give them.... Sad
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
I agree,excellent post,and laudes deserved! And maybe it is worth to be mentioned that both other generals lived and acted AFTER Alexander's legacy. Alexander did things that are still studied by modern generals,and i can't imagine that his study was not popular in antiquity,when he could certainly be better understood,than we can.
Khairete
Giannis
Giannis K. Hoplite
a.k.a.:Giannis Kadoglou
a.k.a.:Thorax
[Image: -side-1.gif]
Reply
Quote:And what if Alexander wanted to be venerated as a God? So were so many other Greeks (and many more non-Greeks), even during their lives... And from all these, Alexander probably deserved this the most.

Surely Lysander deserved it more! :wink:
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ancient synagogue mosaic may depict Alexander the Great Steven James 3 2,494 09-15-2016, 10:43 AM
Last Post: ValentinianVictrix
  Massacre of Greeks under Alexander the Great foojer 10 4,803 02-24-2013, 06:35 PM
Last Post: Paralus
  Who Killed Alexander the Great? D B Campbell 8 2,889 05-22-2012, 07:40 AM
Last Post: sitalkes

Forum Jump: