Alexander as great a general as everyone thinks?

Boethus · Jan 17, 2014

Achilles must surely have been one of the best generals. I mean even Hektor couldn't stand up to him. He's even better than Darius or Xerxes.

So I think Alexander of Macedon fades in comparison to Achilles of Argos. So a great general with impressive fighters in the Myrmidons who were much better than the Spartans. That's Achilles. Alexander sounds like he's a work of fiction.

Xenology · Jan 17, 2014

hypernova said:
Sign me up, I love a plump woman.

Boethus said:
Achilles must surely have been one of the best generals. I mean even Hektor couldn't stand up to him. He's even better than Darius or Xerxes.

So I think Alexander of Macedon fades in comparison to Achilles of Argos. So a great general with impressive fighters in the Myrmidons who were much better than the Spartans. That's Achilles. Alexander sounds like he's a work of fiction.

Not sure if you're trolling or not....Achilles is fictional Troy did happen yes but it hasn't been proved Odysseus or even Achilles was real I don't even know if the myrmidons were real. However Alexander fades in existence compared to most generals his only credible sources of being amazing is using a army and empire his father already built, guagamela, and some pitched battles, and a legacy of failed successor kingdoms only other thing is he never lost a battle but there are countless generals who have never lost a battle.

Boethus · Jan 17, 2014

Yes Odysseus too had some good ideas, like hiding in the boats down (or up) the coast slightly while the Trojans took in the horsey thing. That was at Salamis wasn't it?

Xenology · Jan 17, 2014

Boethus said:
Yes Odysseus too had some good ideas, like hiding in the boats down (or up) the coast slightly while the Trojans took in the horsey thing. That was at Salamis wasn't it?

It was Troy and considered a gift of poseoden so they brought it in....if you want to know more read the illiad and odyssey then watch the movie troy but Achilles is fake I'm not sure if Odysseus is or not though.

Boethus · Jan 17, 2014

Oh yes I know the Horse got bought into Troy (that's not in the Iliad btw) but I was wondering about the little bay (little enough for a 1000 ships) where they went and hid while they waited for that to happen. I think it was called Salamis wasn't it?

Xenology · Jan 17, 2014

Boethus said:
Oh yes I know the Horse got bought into Troy (that's not in the Iliad btw) but I was wondering about the little bay (little enough for a 1000 ships) where they went and hid while they waited for that to happen. I think it was called Salamis wasn't it?

Perhaps....I'm not entirely sure I never really looked to far into troy besides a few reading s and the illiad and odyssey including the movie (what was it?)

Boethus · Jan 17, 2014

Troy by Petersen? The one with the wonderful Diane Kruger as Helen?

Not really too faithful that one, Themistocles gets killed 3/4s of the way through whereas in real life he lived on to give his daughter away in one of the Greek goddesses service. Or was that Agamemnon? I'll have another look....

Xenology · Jan 17, 2014

Boethus said:
Troy by Petersen? The one with the wonderful Diane Kruger as Helen?

Not really too faithful that one, Themistocles gets killed 3/4s of the way through whereas in real life he lived on to give his daughter away in one of the Greek goddesses service. Or was that Agamemnon? I'll have another look....

Periceles died near the very end agammemnom was killed by hector near the beginning or they were similar in time spans.

Boethus · Jan 17, 2014

I think you're getting mixed up with Pericles of Athens and Patroklos, Achilles boyfriend (or cousin in Petersen's movie). Easy to do, I think I might have got Athens and Troy mixed up above....

By the way that was Menelaus at the start. Agamemnon made it through a little longer in Petersen's revised version.

Xenology · Jan 17, 2014

Boethus said:
I think you're getting mixed up with Pericles of Athens and Patroklos, Achilles boyfriend (or cousin in Petersen's movie). Easy to do, I think I might have got Athens and Troy mixed up above....

By the way that was Menelaus at the start. Agamemnon made it through a little longer in Petersen's revised version.

Yeah its been a while since I watched the movie

so I don't remember to much but I think you may have or may not have I'm looking for more info about it right now to make sure.

Theodoric · Jan 17, 2014

Aetius said:
Never lost a battle.

Cyrus the Great did that first.

Aetius said:
Beat the biggest ancient empire and most of Asia's horse riding peoples with a small army.

Alexander fought an army of an Empire in turmoil; not long before, Xenophon's 10,000 had marched through 1700 kilometers of Persian territory - and Alexander's army was . Cyrus was in a way, greater than Alexander and Philip combined in that respect.

Aetius said:
Lead the longest and most successful continuous campaign in history.

Cyrus the Great did it first; and created the blueprint for these types of campaigns in the very region Alexander would be campaigning in.

Aetius said:
Was also one of the best soldiers of his army, often in the first line engaged in hand-to-hand-combat.

Cyrus did it first.

Aetius said:
Was a visionary politician and the biggest rock star of antiquity.

Cyrus the Great was called King of Kings, and titled the Annointed Messiah by the Jewish people of the Bible. Cyrus the Great invented the Imperial Provincial system that all future successful Empires followed into modern times.

Aetius said:
Can't see any issues with him, a military miracle, the man of the millennium.

Alexander's Empire collapsed after his death. Cyrus's Empire was set up to survived.

All in all, Alexander's accomplihsments are great, but Cyrus wrote the book on how to be a Great; and has none equal in that respect.

herrnimrod · Jan 17, 2014

Cyrus the Great did that first.

So? It doesn't become easier to go undefeated just because somebody has already done it. That's like saying Messi scoring 50 goals in a season is not impressive because Pele already did that in 1963.

Alexander fought an army of an Empire in turmoil; not long before, Xenophon's 10,000 had marched through 1700 kilometers of Persian territory - and Alexander's army was . Cyrus was in a way, greater than Alexander and Philip combined in that respect.

Being able to muster 3 full stacked armies to try and defeat him is not what I'd call being in turmoil. This is not the western empire where the only army you can send to meet a threat is some ragtag mercenary force, if anything at all. All the 10.000 story proves is that greek soldiers were superior to the Persians on a man to man basis, which is why later Persian kings hired them in droves. Alexander faced 20.000 of them in Asia.

Cyrus the Great did it first; and created the blueprint for these types of campaigns in the very region Alexander would be campaigning in.

If he read Xenophon he for sure picked up on things, but are their campaigns really all that similar? Cyrus strike me as a much more benevolent and diplomatic general than Alex was. Relying on cooperation and goodwill, where Alex demanded submission through brute force.

Cyrus did it first.

Many did back then. Though Alex might get added credit for doing it in a time where it was no longer demanded and expected that you do.

Cyrus the Great was called King of Kings, and titled the Annointed Messiah by the Jewish people of the Bible. Cyrus the Great invented the Imperial Provincial system that all future successful Empires followed into modern times.

Advantage Cyrus, agreed.

Alexander's Empire collapsed after his death. Cyrus's Empire was set up to survived.

Did the Roman Empire collapse when it split it in half? The successors kept most of their territory for hundreds of years. By all accounts Alexander had a lot of ideas and plans on how to set up the empire, he just never got around to actually doing it. His policy of intermarriage with the persians and locals in the army are all evidence of a far sighted man who had grand plans for the future.

All in all, Alexander's accomplihsments are great, but Cyrus wrote the book on how to be a Great; and has none equal in that respect.

And for all we know it was mostly propaganda. That's the problem with Cyrus, knowing which stories about him are actually true. He was a great man no doubt, possibly the greatest, but that book make him out to be the Messiah! I'm not sure he was really THAT great.

tornada · Jan 17, 2014

Theodoric said:
Cyrus the Great did that first.

Alexander fought an army of an Empire in turmoil; not long before, Xenophon's 10,000 had marched through 1700 kilometers of Persian territory - and Alexander's army was . Cyrus was in a way, greater than Alexander and Philip combined in that respect.

Cyrus the Great did it first; and created the blueprint for these types of campaigns in the very region Alexander would be campaigning in.

Cyrus did it first.

Cyrus the Great was called King of Kings, and titled the Annointed Messiah by the Jewish people of the Bible. Cyrus the Great invented the Imperial Provincial system that all future successful Empires followed into modern times.

Alexander's Empire collapsed after his death. Cyrus's Empire was set up to survived.

All in all, Alexander's accomplihsments are great, but Cyrus wrote the book on how to be a Great; and has none equal in that respect.

Just because Cyrus was a great general doesn't diminish Alexander's achievements. And the ability to judge when a strong enemy is weak is absolutely critical in a great general. Had alexander invaded with artaxerxes incharge he would have died. Had he invaded too long after he actually dis, Darius would have had the east under control and Memnom would have whupped Alexander. Plus his allies would have deserted.

Look the fact that Alexander may not have been the greatest general or leader in the entire history of mankind doesn't meant alexander is not great. Even if you feel there were some people ahead of him, Alexander's achievements remain astounding enough, particularly given his near constant weak domestic situation. You may not believe alexander is the greatest, but he is still great.

Xenology · Jan 17, 2014

tornada said:
Just because Cyrus was a great general doesn't diminish Alexander's achievements. And the ability to judge when a strong enemy is weak is absolutely critical in a great general. Had alexander invaded with artaxerxes incharge he would have died. Had he invaded too long after he actually dis, Darius would have had the east under control and Memnom would have whupped Alexander. Plus his allies would have deserted.

Look the fact that Alexander may not have been the greatest general or leader in the entire history of mankind doesn't meant alexander is not great. Even if you feel there were some people ahead of him, Alexander's achievements remain astounding enough, particularly given his near constant weak domestic situation. You may not believe alexander is the greatest, but he is still great.

Personally I like Alexander over cyrus

okamido · Jan 17, 2014

Cyrus was not undefeated.

President Camacho · Jan 17, 2014

Cyrus never lost a battle? That's a strong assertion. What are your sources? 30 something years as a top dog and never lost a battle!!!! That sounds extreeeeemely questionable. What about his last battle? Did he win that one, too?

Cyrus was a warrior King for sure. I wish I knew more about him. I'll make an effort in the near future. I want to know how healthy the Medes were when Cyrus took over. Were they in turmoil? In 30 years he never conquered Egypt... why? Alexander was Pharaoh but maybe it's not fair to ask why Cyrus wasn't.

Cyrus' first battle with Croesus was a victory? He got the whole of Lydia from two battles. The first battle, if I recall, was recorded as somewhat of a bloody draw by Herodotus. The second battle was unexpected by Croesus and a sweeping victory. Good Generalship here!

What other major battles did he fight? What awesome seiges like Alexander's at Tyre?

How fair is it to contrast and compare someone's ability to consolidate their empire in 30 years versus 10 years?

tomar · Jan 17, 2014

Aetius said:
Never lost a battle.

Beat the biggest ancient empire and most of Asia's horse riding peoples with a small army.

Lead the longest and most successful continuous campaign in history.

Was also one of the best soldiers of his army, often in the first line engaged in hand-to-hand-combat.

Was a visionary politician and the biggest rock star of antiquity.

Can't see any issues with him, a military miracle, the man of the millennium.

Right ...... I see the propaganda and personality cult are alive and well

"Just a small army" was actually probably the largest single army of its time. Ah of course, the persians had armies of zillion men..... according to Alex's personal propagandists

As far as conquerors go he is certainly no better than Genghis and a host of others...

As for being the best solider of his army, you know this how ?

Being engaged in hand to hand combat if true, is a sign of utmost stupidity

Most people fail to mention that he was a war criminal and a serial rapist ....Why ? Does not fit with the cudlly super hero image ?

For a visionnary politician he was dangerously incompetent.. Aside from personnally murdering close and not so close friends, as soon as he died his stolen empire collapsed into factions.... This means that he had not consolidated anything and had not prepared a transition of power. So he basically grabbed an empire that had stood for centuries and destroyed it. This makes him worse than Attila the Hun.

As for being undefeated, really ? That is why he hightailed it out of India , subito, presto ? What do people call that ? A misunderstanding ?

And how about the brilliant decision to march through a desert ? Another brilliant victory no doubt,,,, A military miracle as you put it.

********************************************************
Upon reaching the Ocean, Alexander the Great divided his forces in half, sending half back by sea to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa"]Susa[/ame] under the command of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearchus"]Nearchus[/ame].[1] The other half of his army was to accompany him on a march through the Gedrosian desert, inland from the ocean.[2] Throughout the 60 day march through the desert, Alexander lost at least 12,000 soldiers
*******************************************************

Once you scrape away the layers of propaganda, idolatry and plain lies the reality of what is left aint pretty....

But of course its so much more "romantic" to idealize a genius man god,

Xenology · Jan 20, 2014

tomar said:
Right ...... I see the propaganda and personality cult are alive and well

"Just a small army" was actually probably the largest single army of its time. Ah of course, the persians had armies of zillion men..... according to Alex's personal propagandists

As far as conquerors go he is certainly no better than Genghis and a host of others...

As for being the best solider of his army, you know this how ?

Being engaged in hand to hand combat if true, is a sign of utmost stupidity

Most people fail to mention that he was a war criminal and a serial rapist ....Why ? Does not fit with the cudlly super hero image ?

For a visionnary politician he was dangerously incompetent.. Aside from personnally murdering close and not so close friends, as soon as he died his stolen empire collapsed into factions.... This means that he had not consolidated anything and had not prepared a transition of power. So he basically grabbed an empire that had stood for centuries and destroyed it. This makes him worse than Attila the Hun.

As for being undefeated, really ? That is why he hightailed it out of India , subito, presto ? What do people call that ? A misunderstanding ?

And how about the brilliant decision to march through a desert ? Another brilliant victory no doubt,,,, A military miracle as you put it.

********************************************************
Upon reaching the Ocean, Alexander the Great divided his forces in half, sending half back by sea to Susa under the command of Nearchus.[1] The other half of his army was to accompany him on a march through the Gedrosian desert, inland from the ocean.[2] Throughout the 60 day march through the desert, Alexander lost at least 12,000 soldiers
*******************************************************

Once you scrape away the layers of propaganda, idolatry and plain lies the reality of what is left aint pretty....

But of course its so much more "romantic" to idealize a genius man god,

I see you're not a major Alexander fan XD I'm not either however I think you just wrecked the forum with so many facts Alexander just lost a battle.

tornada · Jan 20, 2014

There's no actual evidence for Alexander the great being defeated in India. Logically the argument makes sense, since it seems highly unlikely that Alexander after defeating a local king with the help of an allied Indian king (Ambhi of Taxila, called Taxiles) would turn around and make the defeated king satrap of his Indian provinces rather than than his ally from Taxila. However, that is speculation, based on an absence of evidence. One could just as easily (and logically) argue that Alexander turned around because of some religious sign (since he was so superstitious).

The official records indicate that he turned away because of a mutiny. You may doubt the integrity of the official sources, but unless alternative evidence of some sort exists which shows that Alexander was defeated, we must assume that he was undefeated, since all the records are unanimous on this. It is rightly said that Victors write history, and since we have no accounts of the battle of Hydaspes other than Alexander we can only assume that he did infact win, since that is what the evidence says.

However, Tomar's other assertions about Alexander and his critique of Aetius's "man of the millennium" is largely reasonable IMO. People like castigating non-european conquerors such as Genghis Khan as mass murderers, but Alexander's actions at Thebes, Tyre, Gaza, particularly of his treatment of Batis (if we believe Quintus Curtius Rufus) was quite barbaric as well, not to mention his subsequent actions such as murdering a man who saved his life dozens of times.

With regards to Alexander being the best soldier in his army. That is rubbish. However it is true, that Greek culture and Macedonian Culture (Hellenistic culture basically) demanded that men lead from the front. As such if Alexander had not fought, he would have opened himself up to claims of cowardice. It should be remembered, that many of the claims of cowardice applied against Darius are precisely because he never fought personally. Alexander was almost required by law (this is a hyperbolic statement) to fight in the battles.

However, we cannot dismiss Alexander's achievements. As I've said before, was Alexander the greatest general in the history of mankind? That is a question that simply cannot be answered without bias. There is no such thing as the "best general". In some ways he was immensely superior to generals such as Caesar or even Genghis Khan. His military record and win loss ratio is certainly better than theirs. But in other terms, he was no where close. Genghis, Cyrus, Caesar, these people conquered to build. Alexander's conquests and empire was ephemeral, and evaporated pretty soon the moment he died! Alexander is however a "Great". In terms of relative achievement he has achieved more than 99% than the kings or generals of the world. In absolute terms he took an army on what was possibly the first world tour

, and despite the persistent criticism remains one of the greatest military minds of Human History. One reason his romantic figure is so romantic is because at the end of the day, his successes were in some ways unparalleled, he broke the power of Greece (I personally believe that credit for Chaeronea should go to Alexander, since he saw and exploited the gap in the Theban and Athenian lines, without him, Phillips' phalanx would have died) and then broke it again. He led highly successful campaigns into Thracia and then turned the Persian Empire into dust. Did he do it through a combination of bribery alongside his victories, through luck and through exploiting a weakened empire? Of-course he did! But so did every other successful general in History. Luck, the ability to judge weakness, the ability to corrupt the enemy... all of these are essential in any successful general.

Xenology · Jan 20, 2014

tornada said:
There's no actual evidence for Alexander the great being defeated in India. Logically the argument makes sense, since it seems highly unlikely that Alexander after defeating a local king with the help of an allied Indian king (Ambhi of Taxila, called Taxiles) would turn around and make the defeated king satrap of his Indian provinces rather than than his ally from Taxila. However, that is speculation, based on an absence of evidence. One could just as easily (and logically) argue that Alexander turned around because of some religious sign (since he was so superstitious).

The official records indicate that he turned away because of a mutiny. You may doubt the integrity of the official sources, but unless alternative evidence of some sort exists which shows that Alexander was defeated, we must assume that he was undefeated, since all the records are unanimous on this. It is rightly said that Victors write history, and since we have no accounts of the battle of Hydaspes other than Alexander we can only assume that he did infact win, since that is what the evidence says.

However, Tomar's other assertions about Alexander and his critique of Aetius's "man of the millennium" is largely reasonable IMO. People like castigating non-european conquerors such as Genghis Khan as mass murderers, but Alexander's actions at Thebes, Tyre, Gaza, particularly of his treatment of Batis (if we believe Quintus Curtius Rufus) was quite barbaric as well, not to mention his subsequent actions such as murdering a man who saved his life dozens of times.

With regards to Alexander being the best soldier in his army. That is rubbish. However it is true, that Greek culture and Macedonian Culture (Hellenistic culture basically) demanded that men lead from the front. As such if Alexander had not fought, he would have opened himself up to claims of cowardice. It should be remembered, that many of the claims of cowardice applied against Darius are precisely because he never fought personally. Alexander was almost required by law (this is a hyperbolic statement) to fight in the battles.

However, we cannot dismiss Alexander's achievements. As I've said before, was Alexander the greatest general in the history of mankind? That is a question that simply cannot be answered without bias. There is no such thing as the "best general". In some ways he was immensely superior to generals such as Caesar or even Genghis Khan. His military record and win loss ratio is certainly better than theirs. But in other terms, he was no where close. Genghis, Cyrus, Caesar, these people conquered to build. Alexander's conquests and empire was ephemeral, and evaporated pretty soon the moment he died! Alexander is however a "Great". In terms of relative achievement he has achieved more than 99% than the kings or generals of the world. In absolute terms he took an army on what was possibly the first world tour , and despite the persistent criticism remains one of the greatest military minds of Human History. One reason his romantic figure is so romantic is because at the end of the day, his successes were in some ways unparalleled, he broke the power of Greece (I personally believe that credit for Chaeronea should go to Alexander, since he saw and exploited the gap in the Theban and Athenian lines, without him, Phillips' phalanx would have died) and then broke it again. He led highly successful campaigns into Thracia and then turned the Persian Empire into dust. Did he do it through a combination of bribery alongside his victories, through luck and through exploiting a weakened empire? Of-course he did! But so did every other successful general in History. Luck, the ability to judge weakness, the ability to corrupt the enemy... all of these are essential in any successful general.

One it's spelled Ceaser not caeser two he is not better than 99% of the generals out there as I doubt he would be able to defeat another army similar to his or larger with another general that was considered the mastermind of their day maybe even rivaling him, as Ceaser crushed Pompey with a smaller army who were both Romans and Pompey was considered the greatest roman general of his time. Three it was Phillip who actually defeated the Greeks and technically they didn't really break them if Sparta survived past Macedon and into roman times. Alexander was nowhere near a good leader as others believe as his empire was set to fail the second he died, he had no heir, and no plan to consolidate his empire whatsoever. I really don't see what's so heroic about a general running into combat hand to hand that's just lunacy and peer idiocy you can't manage your army or give them morale during the battle now you're relying on your captains to do the work for you! And to lead your army! How again does this prove that he's the greatest? Oh yeah his very oh so powerful propagandists who have to say only good things about Alexander or they'd be killed, he was a glory hound and in no way did he ever fight a million man sized or even billion sized Persian army.

Search

Search

Alexander as great a general as everyone thinks?

Boethus

Xenology

Boethus

Xenology

Boethus

Xenology

Boethus

Xenology

Boethus

Xenology

Theodoric

herrnimrod

tornada

Xenology

okamido

President Camacho

tomar

Xenology

tornada

Xenology

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions