nic Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Hey, Its seems to be widely said (especially in documentries about him) that Alexander is the greatest General in history. Do you guys think differently or is this claim accurate? thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 ROMAN FORUM old boy Alexander was greek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Macedonian really. =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Splitting hairs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 well how aboutthis old chaps! did alexander the great ever fight the romans??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Nope, and if he did he'd have lost! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Ok nic, as for the original question... Was Alexander the greatest ever? Just by reading a few of the 'greatest general' threads on this forum you can see the widely divergent views on this issue. Some people discount Alexander because his opposition was not as great as some other generals faced. Personally, I rank any general who conquers half the known world (metaphor) without losing a battle as among the greatest. Still, 'ranking' is so objective. Even for generals who faced one another, there are many circumstances which don't necessarily justify the victor as being 'ranked' higher. One example off the top of my head... Scipio over Hannibal at Zama - Hannibal's army was made up of mostly raw recruits by this point vs. Scipio's hardened veterans, though that in itself is not the only reason for the result. Despite the fact that Scipio won the battle, the majority of scholars place Hannibal ahead of Scipio partly for the fact that things may have been quite different if the two generals met at full strength under different circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Time and Circumstance PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Time and Circumstance PP And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 The quote sums up your answer PP trying to help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 question guys... was alexander really even that great of a general? i mean yes he had a few brilliant manuever such as the ones he put on the persians, but i mean... what kind of opposition did he really have to conquer? his foes, as least in my opinion, were no wear near as dangerous or smart and cunning as the ones faced by the roman generals over time. and i think the only real reason he conquered all that he did was cuz of his overwhelming desire to capture the persian king... i guess what im asking is.. is alexander really known for being a great general or just simply because he conquered so much land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spartacus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 I think his father was a better soldier, Alexander was a strange man indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Alexander did not fight the crazy, no strategy battles that many thing. His opponent was one that had conquered the whole Middle East and even pierced India. How can you do that with the crappy kind of fighters conquer so much?Thos were myths perpetrated by greek historians. Has any Roman general faced an army across a rapid river that was filled with over 200(Indian) elaphants on the other side? Alexander faced incredible odds. He was always outnumbered. With Cavalry often outnumbering his whole army yet he managed to defeat them with his mere 7000. At gaugamela Daruis put just about everything that could get in the phalanx way. He cleard off the enitre field for his chariots. Got Greek mercenaries, huge number of cavalry, elaphants. He faced mountaineous warfare and Parthian guerrillas(they werent exactly at their peak yet but...). he performed brilliant sieges, Siege of Tyre. Also Alexander did conquer for his own ambitions. But also for his nation. Macedon was broke at the time. The only thing that would bring it back to life was conquest. What better then to bring down an Empire that has been meddling in your nations affair for years. The man was obviously strategically brilliant ad gifted. Who is "Great" by your standards? Don't say Caesar since his name will be forever associated with a king. For over 2 thousand years his name was translated in tons of different languages and used as a word for king. Who Antiochus, Mithrades, HANNO? Face it, the guy had every tight to gloat. You make an empire like his in 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Regulus Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Alexander would ahve never had an opportunity to do what he did if it hadn't been for his father -- I personally beleive that any son with any ambition could have carved out some sort of Empire with the army that was built by him. If Alexander had met the Romans -- hmm. The Romans would beat him, they understood tactics better but calvary might have been a problem for them. The fact was that most of Alexanders opponents were outclassed or stupid the only one worth anything was Darius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scanderbeg Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 If Alexander had met the Romans -- hmm. The Romans would beat him, they understood tactics better but calvary might have been a problem for them. The fact was that most of Alexanders opponents were outclassed or stupid the only one worth anything was Darius. IF Alexander fought the Romans he would not just have phallanx and heavy cavalry(which at the time would be enough to beat them). But would be carryng with him Indian elaphants and other kind of weapons from the east. Stuff the Romans would have never been used to. Phillip gave Alex the Macedonian phalanx. But Phillip proved he wasnt the tactician Alexander through his battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts