Go to the alexander-the-great.co.uk homepage
alexander-the-great.co.uk
Talk about the Oliver Stone movie "Alexander"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

was Alexander the Great the greatest military leader
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the man
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tigresa1



Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:05 pm    Post subject: Quite Possibly Reply with quote

But we'll never know how he might have stacked up against the Mongols whose battle tactics could have posed a problem for the fomulaic Alexander who although brilliant might not have had the tactical infrastructure to deal with such a fierce and focused army.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Cami Te Amo!



Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me, he is the greatest! Except Maradona! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
strykar



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well...who knows how he would have stacked up against the mongols. He did fight and beat the Skythians, who had a steppe cavalry army.

Its interesting to speculate. Read the new sci-fi book, by Arthur C. Clarke, "Time's Eye". In it, he has Alexander's army taking on the mongols of Genghis Khan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Salonika



Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting topic, in my opinion i think alexander would have defeated the mongols, like it was said they were only a cavalry force made up of small people a small pony-like horse nevertheless a big force with big numbers , that means they would have fought on large plains to support there massive numbers, this would have been excellent for alexander the greater the plains the better, just deploy the macedonian phalanx to the max supported by cavalry on its flanx,to keep the mongol centred, it doesn't matter the numbers look at darius, and ceaser with the gauls, it is shear wits, something that only a great general has, its in his blood, knowing how the enemy thinks, being two steps infront, then victory........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tino



Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For once we agree on something Salonika
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Salonika



Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes we do Tino, that is good to hear, but i think in my opinion, it is phillip alexanders father that is the better general than alexander, if there would be an oportunity to meet both alexander or phillip i would prefer to meet phillip, everthing what alexander knows, has, and did phillip would have done also, it is phillip who gave birth to one of the best military armies of that time, gave birth to what was the roman army and so on, organised individual units, seperate from the general, each unit has its own leader, it is to bad that the macedonians invented something that is used for killing instead of something more useful, but they lived in a different time i guess......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Salonika



Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if sogdians used hit and run tactics, so did alexander he despatched his army in five sections after them, you use gorilla warfare with gorilla warfare, you don't send whole armies to wipe out small armies, i was commenting on it depends on the situation, the area, and nobody is perfect everyone ultimatly looses, sooner or later, but there is a difference between a general and a great general, it is defeating the increadible odds...........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kevin
Site Admin


Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 630
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The best tacticians are those that can prevent a war in the first place...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Salonika



Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, however it is his military acheivements that make alexander the great and you wouldn't of had this web page in the first place, he was conquerer, whiich is funny there is a saying kill one person you are a murderer kill a million you are a conquerer, for me he was murderer, killed a lot people to apetite his hunger for conquest and gold, probably oliver stone will focus on that in his movie, i think that is what he was, its all about me Laughing Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cami Te Amo!



Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the book The 100: Ranking Of The Most Influental Persons In History by Michael H. Hart, Alexander The Great in ranked on 33 place. He is compared with Hitler and Napoleon!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Salonika



Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You see Cami he is put with napolean and hitler, and we know hitler wasn't a plesent man, but alexander differed a little bit in a way that he tried to fuse all nationalities to make his empire with one common identity, but he wasn't popular for this achievement,well tried to achieve, but was popular for his military exploits, nevertheless he was a great tactician for his time.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tino



Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 292
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kevin wrote:
The best tacticians are those that can prevent a war in the first place...


Agreed, perhaps IF we lived in a more enlightened age (that age is yet to come).

For their time though Darius was not so great either! LOL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
marsian



Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings from Hong Kong,

It's difficult to say who will win between Genghis Khan and Alexander, because the truth is, whatever we say are merely speculations.

Nevertheless, I would like to say that Genghis Khan would be a much stronger opponnent to Alexander, then Darius. My point is this, by using the battle of Issus as a point of reference would in my humblest opinion a wrong starting point.

Yes, Alexander did defeat King Darius even when the odds is against Alexander "1 Greek against 10 Persian", but we know nothing of King Darius as a person. Was he a Strategist, one that is comparable to Memnon or Genghis Khan?

Some might argue that Genghis Khan uses number to defeat his enemy, but if you truely read into the history of Genghis Khan, you will know that's not the truth.

Genghis Khan (supreme leader of all tribes) did not have an easy childhood, after his father, who was a leader of a tribe was killed in battle, Timujin (Genghis Khan's real name) was actually abandone by his tribe, and they were left barely with anything to survive. In addition, Timujin, his mother, and their immediate family were constantly pursue by other tribal leaders who swear to finish them off. Thought, it was because of such environment that he grew up in equipped him with the neccessary intellect to in the end winning the respect of all the mongol tribal leaders (even his previous enemies) and gaining the title of "Genghis Khan".

Think about it, Timujin actually overcome all those hardship, unlike Darius, who probably stabbed someone in the back to gain hold of his position.

Like Alexander, Timujin conquered a vast area of land, if I remembered correctly, he was listed by Fortune magazine as the wealthiest conqueror (base on the amount of land and treasure) in history. Timujin did not start off with a huge army, but his army were gain as he conquest continued. In the end, his army became a huge invinsible force which terrorize Asia and Eastern Europe.

In the end, my point is the fact that both Alexander, and Timujin were Great Conqueror, and by saying one is stronger than the other would somehow demean their glorious past. Therefore, I think we should learn from them, "their will to overcome all obstacle to achieve their end goal" such personality would be more than enough in winning respect from any human being regardless of nationalities.

Thank you for reading, whether you agree with me or not. Very Happy

Ciao!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marsian



Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

magika wrote:
Marsian,

Thank you for the info on Timujin.

I also agree with most of what you say but one.

I don't understand (and deep down I don't like) why we glorify those two men's wars as if they were winning football matches!!! I don't know about Timujin (I thought there was a difference between Mongols and Chineese tribes) but Alexander the Great (from what we learn) did not use force unless trully needed. I would like to think that with both men first came thought and then action.


hihi Magika,

Nice to hear from you again!! Well you got a point, I wish President Bush would've understand your point too. Very Happy

As for the Chinese and Mongols, yes they are very different. In fact the Chinese called the Mongols the barbarian. The very reason why the Chinese built the Great Wall of *** was to keep those invaders away. Though, Timujin did manage to invade ***, and in the end started the Yuan Dynasty, but after the death of Timujin's son and Grandson, the Yuan Dynasty was overthrown by the Ming Dynasty, and so did Timujin's empire.

I guess no empire can withstand the test of time.

Another interesting thing is, although the Mongols did conquer *** in the end, but I believe its the other way around. My reason is this, the Mongols were fascinated by not only how rich the Chinese were, but the high degree of civilization (eg. Language, art, education, architecture etc). Eventually the Mongols were assimilated into Chinese. The Mongols conquered *** physically with force, but the Chinese conquered Mongols through its culture. Razz

I have a question, where are you from Magika?

Wink Tata
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marsian



Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

magika wrote:
Thessaloniki, Greece. U?


Hong Kong S.A.R, ***

I would love to visit Greece one day, after reading so many books about ancient Greece.

Egypt would be my next choice. Wanted to see the Valley's of the Kings, where Amenhoptec, Ramses, and many other Pharaohs rest in eternity.
(I also read alot of historical fiction about Egypt, so fascinating) Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the man All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group