I completely disagree. There have been plenty of smarter folk that have done nothing. Circumstance must perfectly align with ability for Alexander the Great level Greatness.
^Since neither of our stances can be validated, I’m going to declare victory and start drinking.
^ Me too.
Alexander was from GREECE
Furthermore Alex was not too different from GK when it came to outright brutality, worse he was an ineffectual ruler whose empire collapsed pretty quickly. In addition, the conquest of the Persia was his only major play. Good, but neith him nor Napoleon belong in the top.
Yeah, Alex was from Greece. And look at that country now. Napoleon wins again.
Actually, his official name was Alexander III of MACEDON. His father, who was a king, was named Philip II of MACEDON.
wiki brah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
I actually don’t really care but it was Macedonia.
lol Greece is a sh-thole for sure but definitely not Alexander’s fault. Actually, if we’re taking credit, the only reason France even still exists today is because Murica saved it twice, but yeah, who’s counting?
Russia’s Peter could take a hacksaw to Napoleon. If I’d want to win, id go with Baybars over Alex.
At least the French have been extremely polite to us since.
And the French are one of the reasons the American revolution was successful. French money paid for it. Perhaps everyone can call it even.
leaders who use brute force and have no empathy for captured populations have zero chance of conquering the planet. my vote goes to Saladin. potentially the most successful and most beloved conquerer in history.
I was thinking about Saladin, though when dealing with winning hearts and minds it helps that he was a re-conqueror.
It took me a long time to figure this out, but modern Greece is really kind of the vestige of the Eastern Roman Empire. At the time of the Crusades (and even before), Western Europe called the Byzantine Empire “The Greeks,” which made a certain amount of sense, since 1) they spoke Greek, 2) the culture in that part of the world was more derived from Greek (thanks to Alexander the Great’s influence) than classical Western Roman.
The Turks eventually conquered the Byzantines, but the Greeks still existed as a conquered population, as a language, and as a geographic area. In the 19th century, they eventually revolted against the Turks and established their own country, from which descends modern Greece. They are - more or less - the remains of the Byzantine Empire, remains of the Eastern Roman Empire, which was basically the Greek-speaking Greek-dominated half of the Roman Empire. Macedonia, Thrace, etc. weren’t exactly Athens, Sparta, and Corinth, but they weren’t that much more different than Ithaca was from Athens, Sparta, and Corinth, and Ithaca was considered Greek.
The point being that even though Alexander was from Macedon, it’s close enough to say that he was Greek, given that modern Greece encompases many areas that were not technically Greece in clasical times. It’s a bit like pointing out that the Ch’ing were technically Manchus, but the Ch’ing empire was still basically Chinese.
I agree. It really matters to Greek people though.
The largest empire belonged to the British. Like the Romans it took a couple of generations to build and so, no names strike as significant. Perhaps, Robert Clive credited with the conquest of Bengal that opened the doors to the conquest of the rest of India.
Didn’t the French rightly tell the Americans to shove it when they went storming into Iraq with their chests puffed out?
The Americans responded in a manner that only Americans can
France doesn’t tell America anything.
Reminds me of Fate/Zero
The major mistake Hitlet made was to F with Jews. If not, he would have had the nukes and the world would have been very different.