Pantagathus Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 So , perhaps as a demonstration of "strategic reach"? That's what I'm thinking, a kind of "In your face!" to the Punics in the west... or better yet a "Just because you're way over there doesn't mean you're not my bitches too!" jesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greco-Roman Posted April 29, 2006 Report Share Posted April 29, 2006 Before he died he planned an invasion of Saudi Arabia. he also planned taking over carthage and italy before he died coming back imagine how that would work out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal the Great Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 I personally feel Mithradates the Great was an excellent leader though there are probably other much greater ones because even though he was repeatedly beaten he still made his lands prosperous. Even his defeats were not of his own doing, most often he left his generalships to less capable men because there was none as great as him. His own death was the fault of his son not himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Even his defeats were not of his own doing, most often he left his generalships to less capable men Perhaps a less than "great" leadership decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 If I am going to far forward... But I'd also like to comment on a person who gets little recognition, that being Tamerlane and his Golden Horde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greco-Roman Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 I think Pericles was great. Uniting all of Greece and going against the persians. Also making the Parthenon and other great monuments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 It facinates me thought. Why would Alexander want to conquer Saudi Arabia. Egypt, Atilla, the Romans all saw no point in taking a country that is 110 degrees at shade temperature. It was a baren wasteland. Very desolate and in the north mountains and the rest desert. I mean it's not even a good strategic position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal the Great Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Maybe there were resourses he thought were there or maybe because the Bedouins were considered great warriors or maybe he just wanted more land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Tamerlane was not the Khan of the Golden Horde and he fought a bitter war against the Golden Horde led by his former friend Tochtamis. He was of mixed descent turkish and mongol and he became de facto leader of the Horde of Ciaghatai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Tamerlane was not the Khan of the Golden Horde and he fought a bitter war against the Golden Horde led by his former friend Tochtamis. He was of mixed descent turkish and mongol and he became de facto leader of the Horde of Ciaghatai. Thank you for the correction, this time period of history is not a strong point of mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 (edited) It facinates me thought. Why would Alexander want to conquer Saudi Arabia. Egypt, Atilla, the Romans all saw no point in taking a country that is 110 degrees at shade temperature. It was a baren wasteland. Very desolate and in the north mountains and the rest desert. I mean it's not even a good strategic position. Maybe not all of the Arabian penisula but only what came to be called by the Romans as Arabia Felix, or the lands of the Sabaean and Himyarite kingdoms - known today as Yemen. Alexander raided into India, tasted its wealth, so why not control the primary trade route the spices and aromatics came through? After all, Egypt was on the other end...why not go for the whole route (especially if you have a meglomanical streak )? Edited May 19, 2006 by Spurius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguel Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 I think if you want an answer that is beside the Roman stuff, I would say Genghis Khan is the greatest leader. The land he had conquered was even larger than Alexander the Great. What I study at school in the subject of Chinese History, we called that "Wong Wo", for the Eastern Europe was scared of Genghis Khan. He built four "hon guok" (something like states, I am not sure) in Asia Minor, Middle East and Asia, and invaded China, started the Yuen dynasty, which was the first dynasty started by non-Chinese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 In my opinion, the greatness of a leader shouldn't be measured by the amount of land conquered. By that standard, Neil Armstrong was the greatest leader because he captured the entire moon! Obviously, this is absurd. Rather than the amount of land captured, the greatness of leader has to be measured by his innovations, his adversaries, and his legacy. By these measures, the greatest leaders of the ancient world would be people like Perikles, Alexander, Camillus, Scipio, Marius, and Augustus. I'll reiterate for the millionth time that Caesar is completely overrated. His military innovations were scant to nil. Except for arming his light forces to repel cavalry in one or two battles, he introduced nothing as innovative as Alexander, Scipio, or Marius. Heck, he couldn't even manage a supply line (which is why his commentaries on all his wars are mostly how he dealt with the fact that he couldn't even feed his army)! Further, his adversaries in Gaul were backward, iron age farmers and not even close to as advanced as Persia, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, nor as fierce was the Teutons. His legacy was also purely destructive--he destroyed the republic, but he hadn't done anything to prepare for transition or a more useful arrangement. Even his seemingly innovative notions, like restricting the size of the slave labor market, had already been done before (the Licinian plan). Caesar shouldn't have wept when he was 33 and realized he hadn't completed as much as Alexander; he should have wept in 43 when, master of the whole Roman world, he still hadn't completed as much as Alexander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 Ack, the huns conquered more land than Alexander, but it was wilderness with a village here or there. Alexander is overrated. Hmph. There's my two cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 Ack, the huns conquered more land than Alexander, but it was wilderness with a village here or there. Alexander is overrated. Hmph. There's my two cents worth. My opinion on this statement. The word Alexander and overrated do not go together. Credit Genghis Khan for having the brains to stop the Mongols from fighting each other and uniting them. Credit Atilla and the Huns for conquering lands weakened. Alexander conquered the unconquerable at the zenith of their power. No less than 35,000 men facing down 600,000. The first one ever to link the east to the west. Facing Indians and conquering them something that was thought impossible. He did all that at the age of 21. Give him at least 10 more years, and we may not be talking about Carthage, Rome, or even the Arabs! I not only believe the hype of what he did, but what he could have done if he did not die early. That is why he bares the name Alexander the Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts