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 Previous  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
Armaan



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

my opinion, mongols and chingis khan would have wiped out any trace of military might in other nations, they were very skilled, they were obscenely violent, they mixed their fighting skills with psychological warfare and presented themselve with good military leadership..

by the way, there are gross exageration about 10 to 1 #s of greeks and persians... greek historians are famous for exagerations..

i also agree with vasilios... to defeat persians , you only need to kill their king...they totally would become disoriented, the king was the symbol of power, glory, leadership and god....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tani



Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 16
Location: Ottawa, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are right: the Persians were wholy based on their Great King. I think the view - which holds that the Persians at Issus and at Gaugamela lost heart at seeing their King abandon them - is quite right. Yet, wouldn't we be arguing the same thing of the Macedonians if their Alexander had fallen in combat? Wouldn't their whole line have collapse at the news?
I mean, take a look at what happened to his empire after his death. It goes to tell you, I think, that the Macedonians too regared their King as essential to their existence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Armaan



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, thanks for the reply.
alexander showed great courage and perhaps that was one of the critical elements of his success.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:35 am    Post subject: Great armies in the early world other than greece and rome. Reply with quote

tani wrote:
While I absolutely agree that Alexander was undoubtely courageus when fighting, I also have to say that he often run unnecessary risks. He was severely wounded three times. In the case of his death in battle the Macedonians would have been deprived of leadership and thus they would have been wipped out by the sheer scale of the distances to travel and the great number of native satraps loyal only to the charisma of Alexander. Militarily wise, Alexander was a genius with an unequalled view of the battle field. Nothing defied him; no challenge was too small for a man with such great ambition. Yet that same ambition could have - ney, it would have turned sour if he were to be faced with a more formidable enemy or army.
I know that were I to say that if Alexander would have faced a Roman commander he would have probably lost, some people's eyebrows would be imediately raised. The eyebrows would be even more raised if I were to say that if Alexander faced Tiberius Caesar, he would have probably been defeated. To back my case: Tiberius - with all his vices and moods - was maybe the most cautious general to command a Roman army. He prefered diplomacy to outright conflict; he was strict, though not nearly as couragious as Alexander but thats besides the point for courage is not being discused here. Plus, to be honest, the human resources of the Romans would have surely exhausted even the most formidable foe - namely Alexander.


I AGREE with the above comments and alexander would have failed if he invaded the nubian empire and *** as well because nubia had first rate great armies and were one of the best and on average the best fighters and they had the best archers as well that is why the egyptians recruited some of them . read the my post in the thread could alexander conquer all of india? and read below as well.
read.

http://***/afrnubia.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:46 am    Post subject: Re: Great armies in the early world other than greece and ro Reply with quote

[quote="lock"]
tani wrote:
While I absolutely agree that Alexander was undoubtely courageus when fighting, I also have to say that he often run unnecessary risks. He was severely wounded three times. In the case of his death in battle the Macedonians would have been deprived of leadership and thus they would have been wipped out by the sheer scale of the distances to travel and the great number of native satraps loyal only to the charisma of Alexander. Militarily wise, Alexander was a genius with an unequalled view of the battle field. Nothing defied him; no challenge was too small for a man with such great ambition. Yet that same ambition could have - ney, it would have turned sour if he were to be faced with a more formidable enemy or army.
I know that were I to say that if Alexander would have faced a Roman commander he would have probably lost, some people's eyebrows would be imediately raised. The eyebrows would be even more raised if I were to say that if Alexander faced Tiberius Caesar, he would have probably been defeated. To back my case: Tiberius - with all his vices and moods - was maybe the most cautious general to command a Roman army. He prefered diplomacy to outright conflict; he was strict, though not nearly as couragious as Alexander but thats besides the point for courage is not being discused here. Plus, to be honest, the human resources of the Romans would have surely exhausted even the most formidable foe - namely Alexander.


I AGREE with the above comments and alexander would have failed if he invaded the nubian empire and *** as well because nubia had first rate great armies and were one of the best and on average the best fighters and they had the best archers as well that is why the egyptians recruited some of them . read the my post in the thread could alexander conquer all of india?IN THE LINK BELOW IT does not really mention that nubian civiliztions went on after meroe and had other great kingdoms and captials but read anyway. and read below as well.
read.



http://***/afrnubia.html[/quote

http://www.***/preliminary_reports/polish_exp_dongola/godlewski.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:50 am    Post subject: OTHER great armies Reply with quote

Sorry i posted twice i was trying to edited and i am new to this forum,
here are the links from above but i will post them here.

http://***/afrnubia.html

http://www.***/preliminary_reports/polish_exp_dongola/godlewski.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:00 am    Post subject: great websites Reply with quote

here are some other great websites

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=8&forum=Ancient+Egypt+and+Egyptology&DaysPrune=45&startpoint=100

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/latestfindings.html

http://www.netessays.net/viewpaper/4883.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/projects/anderson.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:05 am    Post subject: BOOKS Reply with quote

Other websites and books to read
http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/MT/95/Oct95/mt10o95.htm

In the website below it does not mention the queen's son a king who ruled with her but they both fought the romans together but read it any way and there are books to read as well.
lhttp://www.royalty.nu/Africa/Nubia.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:10 am    Post subject: link Reply with quote

one link above might not work so here is the link below and i would have to find a way to edited without posting the same post,so i am sorry if the post is repeated here.

[quote="lock"]Other websites and books to read
http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/MT/95/Oct95/mt10o95.htm

In the website below it does not mention the queen's son a king who ruled with her but they both fought the romans together but read it any way and there are books to read as well.
http://www.royalty.nu/Africa/Nubia.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OH I FORGOT TO MENTION for the links above if it is read THAT AXUM never conquered all of nubia and the nubians in less than 6 months kick them out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

and for the links on nubia if you have read.
nubia really reach from around the aswan area to the the central sudan and the northern southern sudan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lock



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

correction in one link above. queen amanirenas lived with her son in the first cen. b.c. and not a.d. and southern nubia was taken over by the funj in 1504 and not arabs.THE funj conqured the areas the arabs took over in upper and parts of northern nubia,the turks held the very norther part.the funj were a confed. of nubians and other africans,but later more clear nubian kingdoms were form again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pleb



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 11
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:43 am    Post subject: Re: Alexander as genius Reply with quote

[quote="dieselsx"]Well I would say that he would have stood a chance agianst the mongols they werent invincible. remember the samurai which were hugely outnumbered kicked there butts back into the ocean never to return, they fought on the beach so there is no reason why the macedonians couldnt have done the same, especially the spartans. The roman army at the time of the invasion was at its lowest, overstretched and demoralised so you have to take this into account.[/quote]

The Samurai managed to just fight the first invasion of the mongols to a standstill but what really helped them was a typhoon which wrecked the second invasion fleet which may well have overwhelmed the Japanese...

I maybe wrong here but did the Mongols have stirrups for their horses or was this a later invention? If so, then the Mongol cavalry would have been far superior to Macedonian as they did not have stirrups and therefore could not create the 'punch' that later cavalry had. (this was a problem with all cavalry of the ancient world).

I think though where Alexander's 'genius' lies is that he had a superb command structure which allowed him to lead his companions in battle and still have the comfort of knowing that the rest fo the army would function according to plan....
He was certainly brave but once a commander starts getting involved with localised combat in a particular section of a battlefield, this means that he loses control of the overall tactical situation. A commander cannot direct an army when he is in the front line and therefore his army must be managed by others...in Alexander's case, he had superb officers which were highly trained and capable of command themselves...hence all the fighting after Alexander's death. In saying this though, it might be said that the reason for those superb officers actually lay with Phillip, as he built the Macedonian army and was poised to invade Persian until his death.
All commanders must give out orders to subordinates and then it is up to small units of men/women who actually have to carry out the task. Great commanders have great subordinates and soldiers and this is very true of Alexander....
Darius III, who is mentoned as being an experienced commander, did not own the same type of professionalism in his army and hence he was a symbol of Persia. If he died the army would disintergrate and therefore faced with a massive attack on his own person, he could do no other than flee the field...after all, you can better organise resistance when you are alive:)

So I think Alexander was not so much a genius but a superb soldier who knew his own men, himself and his enemy....a very Sun Tzu trait.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nikas



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:05 am    Post subject: Re: Alexander as genius Reply with quote

Pleb wrote:
dieselsx wrote:
Well I would say that he would have stood a chance agianst the mongols they werent invincible. remember the samurai which were hugely outnumbered kicked there butts back into the ocean never to return, they fought on the beach so there is no reason why the macedonians couldnt have done the same, especially the spartans. The roman army at the time of the invasion was at its lowest, overstretched and demoralised so you have to take this into account.


The Samurai managed to just fight the first invasion of the mongols to a standstill but what really helped them was a typhoon which wrecked the second invasion fleet which may well have overwhelmed the Japanese...

I maybe wrong here but did the Mongols have stirrups for their horses or was this a later invention? If so, then the Mongol cavalry would have been far superior to Macedonian as they did not have stirrups and therefore could not create the 'punch' that later cavalry had. (this was a problem with all cavalry of the ancient world).

I think though where Alexander's 'genius' lies is that he had a superb command structure which allowed him to lead his companions in battle and still have the comfort of knowing that the rest fo the army would function according to plan....
He was certainly brave but once a commander starts getting involved with localised combat in a particular section of a battlefield, this means that he loses control of the overall tactical situation. A commander cannot direct an army when he is in the front line and therefore his army must be managed by others...in Alexander's case, he had superb officers which were highly trained and capable of command themselves...hence all the fighting after Alexander's death. In saying this though, it might be said that the reason for those superb officers actually lay with Phillip, as he built the Macedonian army and was poised to invade Persian until his death.
All commanders must give out orders to subordinates and then it is up to small units of men/women who actually have to carry out the task. Great commanders have great subordinates and soldiers and this is very true of Alexander....
Darius III, who is mentoned as being an experienced commander, did not own the same type of professionalism in his army and hence he was a symbol of Persia. If he died the army would disintergrate and therefore faced with a massive attack on his own person, he could do no other than flee the field...after all, you can better organise resistance when you are alive:)

So I think Alexander was not so much a genius but a superb soldier who knew his own men, himself and his enemy....a very Sun Tzu trait.



I think Alexander most certainly would have stood a chance against the Mongols (assuming that the Greeks of the time had stirrups or that the Mongols did not; there is a difference of almost 1,500 years after all).

The reason I believe so is that the Mongols were primarily a cavalry based army that fought with bow and arrow. Mongol tactics often involved fake retreats to break formations or horse back archery from a distance until the opposing army disintegrated prior to the charge for the coup de grace. Yet Alexander did come up against this very type of army in the form of the Scythians. Arrian gives a detailed description of the battle against the them:

"First to be put ashore were the archers and slingers, who were then ordered to open up on the enemy to prevent them from closing on the main infantry units before the mounted troops were all safely over; then , as soon as every man was across and the army massed on the river-bank, a regiment of mercenaries and four squadrons of lancers were ordered forward to lead the attack. The Scythians met the challenge; their numbers were for the moment superior; they made circles round the small attacking force, shooting as they rode, and then galloped off to a safe distance. At this Alexander ordered an advance by a mixed force consisting of the cavalry together with the archers, the Agrianes, and the other light troops under Balacrus, and, when they were almost within striking distance, gave the word for three regiments of the Companions and all the mounted javelin-men to charge, while he himself at the head of the remaining cavalry came on at the gallop with his squadrons in column.
This effectually put a stop to the enemy's circling movements; the Macedonians cavalry, with the light troops mixed with it in close support, was now right on top of them, and it was no longer possible for them to repeat their former manoeuvre without the certainty of destruction. Indeed, from this moment they were well and truly beaten;"

Arrian, Book IV, 4. The Campaigns of Alexander, Penguin Classics,1971, page 206-207.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 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