|
Post by sarmat on Jan 31, 2012 23:28:30 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Feb 4, 2012 5:51:55 GMT 3
Oh come on Sarmat, we both know deadliest warrior is for pure entertainment
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 4, 2012 13:56:11 GMT 3
those comparisons are really useless and serve no academic purpose. and really, Alexander is totally blown out of proportion by some fanboys nowadays, and we don't even have much primary sources on him at all, and virtually no sources from the other side. the Khans life on the other hand is better sourced. many things people "know" about Alexander is a combination of wishful thinking and inflated opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Feb 4, 2012 15:40:08 GMT 3
Oh come on Sarmat, we both know deadliest warrior is for pure entertainment Someone has lost the sense of humor here. But, honestly, I actually agree with Babur, those comparisons have the similar value as the "deadliest warrior" episodes.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Feb 5, 2012 19:25:23 GMT 3
those comparisons are really useless and serve no academic purpose. and really, Alexander is totally blown out of proportion by some fanboys nowadays, and we don't even have much primary sources on him at all, and virtually no sources from the other side. the Khans life on the other hand is better sourced. many things people "know" about Alexander is a combination of wishful thinking and inflated opinion.Such as? And there ARE sources "from the other side".
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 6, 2012 21:01:27 GMT 3
well, were to start? basically everything. "combined arms" nonsense, "hammer and anvil" utter nonsense, "conquerer of the known world" nonsense. the march of the 10.000 already illustrated the impotence and weakness of the Persian empire, no glory in taking those lands, fighting their armies. the army he had was not inovational, nor was it "special" in any sense. nothing special in the command of his troops. nothign special in the way of strategy. people also tend to ignore that he failed to effectively supress the mutiny of his troops at the indus. And there ARE sources "from the other side". such as?
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Feb 7, 2012 1:55:12 GMT 3
www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.htmlI'd like to start with the fact that you didn't actually explain anything by this post. sorry, don't follow. Not just regular nonsense, but complete and utter one? How so? What is so nonsensical about such a notion? Conqueror of the world known to Greeks is what I've been taught and what makes quite a bit of sense, don't know anyone who'd claim Alexander conquered America. Again, what is nonsensical about it? Just repeating "nonsense" isn't an argument. That is certainly an interpretation. A good one? Nah, don't think so. Also it was some 70-or-so years earlier, the whole of Asia west of India remained boring and dishonorable for a century? One might take that as quite an insult to all them Asians living there. It was not? Surely you'll point out any similar armies in his timeframe then? Or an example of a "better" army from that period? (and yes, it was based on an army structure his father established, but Alexander continued to make quite significant changes) I think it was certainly special in many senses, one would be that it was the only army of Alexander the Great on Earth, which is pretty special. Again, slander and no real arguments. Isn't the word "special" just lovely? You can use it undefined so much and counter any opposing arguments as certainly not meeting your requirements of "specialness". Which people? Why would anyone ignore it? What is "effectively"? He did what any commander would and afterwards there wasn't a mutiny anymore, that seems like supressing it alright to me. Also implying a mutiny automatically makes him a bad commander is laughable. (see? I can do this not-argumenting too) Seriously, do you want to have a discussion, or did you just want to take a swing at Alexander and his alleged fanboys? I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy. I'm not Greek, I'm not Macedonian, I don't dream of a pan-Europist world empire. I'm however interest in ancient history and Alexander's conquests especially. Just because it's an interesting topic.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 8, 2012 0:19:24 GMT 3
a fleeting reference to Darius soldiers fleeing in one battle isn't exactly enough to construct a picture of the supposedly greatest conqueror ever...in a long shot. and it furthermore contradicts, as pointed out, "facts" established by the Greek & latin secondary sources. exactly what i meant about the quality of sources to document Alexanders achievments. haha, it's not me who makes fancy claims of Alexander being a military genius. those who make claims are indepted to back up their claimes, not vice versa... i only stated some points that are often repeated and are wrong from the outset. let's say "to meet halfway". if you firmly believe in Alexander being a military genius, i invite you to as to point out why, and i will gladly refute each and every single one of them by references, sources and common sense. some modern texts claim Alexander invented, or at least practiced "combined arms" (fancy word for some military fanboys) tactics in his army. he didn't. 1. it doesn't correspond as to what actually happened according to ancient Greek & Roman secondary sources. 2. there's no such tactic at all, neither practicably applicable nor confirmed by any ancient (nor modern) military manual. it is the result of bad writing (sensationalism) in modern times to sell books. 1. it wasn't even half the known world to Greeks at the time. 2. it doesn't prove any academical point. just because it was the "known" world to anyone, still doesn't make any one conquerer of the world (or any "world"). again, just some sensationalism to hype something that is apparently in need of being hyped. and i would pretty much call such pracices as 'nonsense'. personal opinion accounts for nothing here. and don't be silly calling out stuff and making idiotic assumptions OK? besides, certain regions of the world remained stagnant for centuries: Qing China, Tokugawa Shogunate. i didn't said there were better armies, i said his army was not inovational. tactics remained essentially unchanged since at least half a century, even longer if we ignore the nuances of phalanx-warfare (Epamindondas). weaponry and equippment wasn't completely new (Iphikrates), neither the cavalry (Xenophon). allies & auxiliaries (Thracians, Thessalians, Sakas) was neither new, nor was it special, nor by 'design', he just used the resources available to him. see Gustavus Adolphus supposed innovations were in fact just the results of financial cuts. similarly, Alexander used what was available to him, no inventions what so ever. any army before him used any of the elements he had with him. that sounds like fanboy worshipping, no real arguments from your side either...at all... again, point being? take your time and write down pages of Alexander fanboyism. i have the time, i heard it all before. please go on. in order to determine why Alexander was supposedly such a great commander, we need to determine what makes him great. so he needs to be "special" in some way, to set him above all the myriads of other commanders in history that also made themselves a name... LOL, come on seriously man, how many armies of great commanders mutineered in history? did Napoleons men in Russia mutineered? i think they had all the reason to. and it included a good deal of non-French troops. a mutiny stands out as a complete failure. the Army of Flanders was full of mutinys throughout their existence, they supressed each and any one of them and still were considered an invincible army by contemporaries, also confirmed by their rigid discipline and battlefield performance. so does that mean every commander of the Army of Flanders was just as good as Alexander, or even better (because they supressed more mutinys)? actually, might be the case! intentional or not, i obviously "swinged" at one...
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Feb 8, 2012 14:01:15 GMT 3
I see, so you are one of those guys. Ok.
You're just continuing with this ridiculous "What's so special about this Alexander guy?! Nothing, this, this, this, nothing special that I see. Why call him Great then, am I right?!" routine.
Even "if" he didn't invent a completely new type of warfare (then again, how many people actually did?) and "just" combined ideas to create something working and effective. Even if he didn't conquer the whole known world, but just a half of it.
He clearly led a fairly small force of well trained professional soldiers for thousands of kilometers, (if you insist on not believing sources we have, I'm going to say "supposedly") supposedly conquered everything that stood in his way. Went on further than his "original" plans were and what the soldiers signed up for, but nevermind, they followed. Then finally, after hundreds of miles more and many more battles in unknown hostile lands, their ranks thinning, there was a mutiny. Which he suppressed and after a few more battles decided to return home.
Your argument about the army of Flanders is either a joke, or you don't understand how logic works. I asked you if you believe in the implication going like so: "mutiny --> commander is bad" If you actually knew of logic, you'd know that implications don't go both ways. So there is no equivalence between mutinies and bad commanders. If you however believed in this implication, that would make the commanders in Flanders bad, in your eyes. I don't know if you do or don't believe the implication is true, but you included the mutiny in your "criticism" of Alexander, so I assumed you did.
Now you're jokingly asking me if this makes all the commanders who experienced a mutiny equal to Alexander. Which is obviously nonsense (ha, remember this word you used like 50 times?), but to acknowledge this you'd have to be interested in an honest discussion and know about logic. You even contradict your own point about mutinies being a measure of good commanders in that very paragraph. First you imply that proper commanders and armies don't go through a mutiny by pointing to Napoleon, then you go on about Flanders and how mutinies were normal and how it didn't affect their reputation at all. So which is it?
I understand that nationalists and ill educated idiots may be annoying, but equally annoying I find smug people talking down legitimately interesting historical personalities, because they're irritated by their worshippers.
You keep repeating that Alexander was not exceptional, special or innovative. None of these words have a real objective measure, you need to put them in context. And you didn't.
Alexander was certainly quite exceptional in his day and age and his deeds are quite exceptional even in the large scope of history.
On one hand you reject simplifications like "conquering the known world" and "the Great", on the other hand you keep using these words like "innovative" and "special". For you it's "fanboyism" and "unscientific adoration", but you do the same thing on the other end of the spectrum - it's defamation without an explanation.
It's you who's supposed to defend his proposed statement that "Alexander was no so Great at all". That's how discussion works.
Now, you have me boxed as a "fanboy", so you'll probably just continue in this smug wannabe-funny way. Which is a shame, I thought better of these forums.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 8, 2012 22:03:57 GMT 3
point is, we have no reliable sources on Alexander, and i personally don't find his exploits in any way remarkable, as said by comparing it with f.ex. Xenophon, Temür (no other commander in history probably marched as much as he did, also roughly same region of campaigns and battles), even Nadir Shah. all of them are way better sourced. saying someone is the greatest only makes sense if you're able to prove it = source it. many of the sources we have on other commanders are reliable and balanced (xenophon) and/ or show the other perspective (Temür). Alexander MIGHT have been great, we don't know, perhaps never will. such are the sad facts of studying ancient, even medieval history, in particular Steppe history were sources are even more so scarce. how much do we know about the earliest commanders, like Sargon of Akkad, all those Assyrian king of kings, and i mean REALLY know? most is interpretation of very few remaining texts. the extent and magnitute of Alexanders exploits are a matter of conjecture and conjecture has no place in academics. there's many modern writers who exagerate and overitnerprete ancient secodnary sources that are already to be taken with a grain of salt. people who think Alexander is great WANT to believe Alexander was great. it's like a religion really, believe it or don't. personally i only believe in facts.
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Feb 9, 2012 16:25:28 GMT 3
I think you're being way too hard on the poor Assyrologists. And on scholars studying Alexander. I'd even say most of history is conjecture. When do we REALLY know anything? You can't really do science without conjecture. Any physicist would tell you that facts are the boring part, not really all that interesting or useful. Hypotheses and theories, now there's something. And yeah, I am quite fond of Xenophon as well. My dad gave me the March of 10 000 when I was 15 and I read it in one night. Can you recommend any good books on Temür in English?
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 10, 2012 13:00:07 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Yazig on Feb 29, 2012 22:21:13 GMT 3
You can't compare Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. They lived in a different time period. The world was totally different. The steppe nomads you mention were also different. You can only compare the achievements. Genghis Khan established the greatest empire. After his death the mongols were able to defeat European armies and also Hungary. Hungary had the best cavalry in Europe but they were defeated too. The mongol bow was at that time the greatest long range weapon at that time. Alexander was a brilliant general but Genghis Khan too. You can't really compare them.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Mar 2, 2012 17:46:10 GMT 3
What strikes me though, in comparing those great men in the past with the "great men" we have right now... the celebrities, pop stars, etc etc
Meh
|
|
|
Post by pecheneg on Apr 24, 2012 18:37:13 GMT 3
Genghis Khan's cavalry hordes would crush their infantries without any losses. LOL i think alexander is big inflated baloon person in history. euro-centric aryan supremacists claims that alexander is greatest leader of history. Genghis Khan's empire was at least x5 times larger than alexander's empire.
|
|