who do think is better and why?i’m going to vote alexander beacuse of his battle with persia where he tricked the persian to leave the center open,and also he created the 19th largest empire ever in one life time.http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html
i think he created the largest expansion of a country by one ruler(correct me if i’m wrong) i think napoleon is only sllightly worse.
Alexander… did much more, with far less technology.
you still think alexander is better than a napoleon with russia as a puppet state!! come on do you think alezander could have come as close as napoleon to conqure moscow. or do you think napoleon would do better in alaxanders quest for fame.
Definately Alexander, although I would have rather done a better poll. Alexander was a the greatest military leader, so comparing him to any general is kind of pointless. A much better comparison would have been Hannibal Barca or Julius Ceasar. Also when you make these polls you should keep them in the same time frame. Comparing a general from the ancient age to one from the enlightment age is liek comparing apples and oranges.
i think apples are better than oraganes :-D but thanks i’ll remember to do that next time. what did ceaser do (like what strergies) i know hannibal did the same thing every battle trick the romans into becoming encirled.
i think apples are better than oraganes :-D but thanks i’ll remember to do that next time. what did ceaser do (like what strergies) i know hannibal did the same thing every battle trick the romans into becoming encirled.
Hannibal was a great military strategist but when it came to diplomacy, he was very limited. He was good at persuading different people to join his army to fight the Romans. However, when he would attempt to make diplomatic decisions with the Romans, it would just go bad for him. Ceasar was a very good military strategist and also a decent diplomat, this is shown especially when the transformation from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire happened.
Caesar is greatest because he set up an empire that could rule the civilized world for hundreds of years. The other blokes lost the empire once they either died or made mistakes. The Romans were far more systematic and had a much better plan on how to control the world once it was conquered.
But as far as only military battles were concerned only napoleon could be considered great because he gave mankind many more new concepts of warfare ( and i would say complete) as far as the prosecution of war. He understood the concept of total war, logistics, mobility even though he sometimes made mistakes ( in russia)
Who added Khan to the options?
(looking for Frimmel’s Avatar in the threads…) :evil:
@ncscswitch:
Who added Khan to the options?
(looking for Frimmel’s Avatar in the threads…) :evil:
I didn’t even see the voting…I was going to suggest the Khans.
I have to agree with IL. And yes, I realize that Ceasar only converted an existing republic into an empire with republican under-tones. But he did manage to not only establish a living dynasty that encompassed the whole of the known civilized world but also did so after being assassinated for creating it! That means it was strong enough to sustain its existance despite its creator’s death.
I have to agree with IL. And yes, I realize that Ceasar only converted an existing republic into an empire with republican under-tones. But he did manage to not only establish a living dynasty that encompassed the whole of the known civilized world but also did so after being assassinated for creating it! That means it was strong enough to sustain its existance despite its creator’s death.
That he did very well but even Ceasar wept knowing that he would never be as great a general as Alexander.
Alexanders empire fell immediatly after he died. What kind of general could permit such a thing?
A good general builds his empire to last for centuries. None of that was demonstrated by any of the other choices.
Also, the Romans influenced the world with their domination of it and this influence has no equal by the standards from any other of the choices.
Also, the Romans had to fight a greater share of enemies for a longer time and won.
The influence on ancient warfare is second to none. If the Greeks and Roman legions would have ever net in battle it would have been a disaster for Greece.
If i had to pick another general it would be Kubli Khan who understood total war but too failed to build a systematic empire to tie together the territories of the empire.
Only the Romans of all civilizations created a better place and an enviroment that connected its people on many levels. Roads, Aqueducts, Trade, irrigation, language, Law, technology all developed from the foundations of Rome.
Alexander was not even better than hannibal and the latter was destroyed by Rome.
alexander’s empire fell because he died young. he was a charismatic figure who was an excellent general, but he died too young to consolidate his power over the regions he conquered, and he died in the farthest reaches of the empire he created. had he survived his conquests and had a chance to consolidate rule, he would have established a much more lasting empire. so you cant dismiss him because he died young, which is in effect what you are doing
i would consider alexanders tactical battle maneuvers to be the best on the list. except for the mongols, who were genuises when it came to tactics.
i think alexanders downfall was his strategic thinking for the long haul.
That would make him akin to Yamamoto then…
One of THE best tactical minds of his age, but perhaps one of the worst strategically.
If the original question is who was the better general…well, hard to determine. What criteria are we going by?Â
I do not think that considering the duration of an “empire” is a quality that amounts to a good general. Generals win battles, they aren’t expected to create lasting domestic policy.
I still give the honor to the Khans for raw subjugation. The world hasn’t seen anything like that. But it’s true it did not last…
what battle did yamamoto win, besides a sneak attack at pearl. which i guess can be stated as the sneak attack as being tactical or tactically sound. because it worked. but what other battle did he win?
was he in the russo-japanese war?
Remember what Alexander started from also…
One pissant subject nation. Macedonia, compared to Greece, was far less than what Americans think of Mexico.
Alexander first took over Greece, then into Asia Minor, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, and India.
That would be like Mexico taking over the US, Canada, Europe, and Russia in today’s world.
Doesn;t matter if it all fell apart after he died. As a General, he still conquored it all…
Agree fully with Jermo and Switch. Generals are supposed to win battles and wars. Alexander did just that. It doesnt matter if his empire lasted. As far as generals are concerned, hes the greatest that ever lived.
what battle did yamamoto win, besides a sneak attack at pearl.
British Force Z, 7th US Air Force, Java Sea, Pearl, and of course Midway WOULD have been a tremendous victory for Japan, were it not for our intercept and decode of Japan radio messages…
