Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
No doubt. But they could have chosen a Westminster form of national government. They did not.

In addition to Geronimo's point, that this obviously doesn't preserve the States' independence, it also was simply not in question that there'd be seperation of powers. All the colonial governments had a structure very similar to that described in the Federal constitution (as opposed to their botched first attempt). The concern was with making the central government actually capable of doing what it needed to without infringing on States' rights.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


His father conquered Greece.

I'm not sure if Greece hasn't revolted after Philip's death.
It revolted after Alex's.
But I just don't know

[Velociryx]

The Empire was in turmoil and chaos...lots to deal with (mostly political, but at least one city state had declared independence...Thessaly).

So yes, he whipped the sagging empire back into shape, re-conquered the parts that were drifting and had declared independence, and then went on to kick Persian azz....AND deal with a rebellion at home (Thebes...which he returned personally to put down).

-=Vel=-

[Heresson]

Thessaly was not a city state

[Velociryx]

oops...but they were rebeling, which was the core question, no?

-=Vel=-

[Heresson]

of course.

[Arrian]

Yeah, he bad to put down a partial revolt. Philip had done the real heavy lifting, though.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

true...the empire wasn't in shambles or anything, but he still had his work cut out for him. Rebellions and assassination attempts, a brutal war with a numerically superior enemy and then another rebellion back home....but he da man...

-=Vel=-

[Traianvs]

and then another rebellion back home

Yeah, but the Spartans were defeated by Antipater and not by himself.

I'm not sure who's the greatest, because a lot of factors are important when considering that, but Alexander sure was very young when he gained power, and he was threatened by several usurpers to the throne, and also by raiding paeonian tribes up north and thracians to the (north-)east at the same time. He put down Greek attempts for independance, and only then started his campaign in the middle east. For someone his age it's quite impressive.


On the other hand, persian regular troops did not have much of a chance against a heavily armoured macedonian phalanx. Even the persian elite was not as heavily armoured (at most scale armour), their spear was much much shorter than the sarissa of the phalangite (around 15 feet!!), their additional bow was also not very effective against the heavy macedonian armour and the raised pikes of the troops behind the first lines also helped blocking arrows.
Not surprisingly the Persians had to rely much on Greek mercenaries as their main infantry corps, because the persians, medes and all other subdued populations didn't stand a chance, and even those hoplites were at a disadvantage because most of them were also less armoured than in classical times thanks to Iphicrates reforms making the greek phalanx more manoeuvrable instead of heavily armoured.

The innovation is that alexander made extensive use of heavy cavalry now, to make up for his very rigid and difficult to manoeuvre phalanx, whereas in the 5th century BC they were mostly used as skirmishers, scouts etc.
thanks to his cavalry he could manage a solid breakthrough in the persian lines while his phalanx could easily hold itself against the superior enemy numbers. A good example of this is at the barrle of the granicus, where his companions ensured a general persian rout, while only the persian greeks make an orderly retreat (but he slaughters them nonetheless setting an example of the greek 'traitors')

In a way it was the Romans who knew how to counter them. Roman soldiers were usually decently armoured, but were very flexible while at the same time staying in formation which is essential in a classical battle. The cumbersome phalanx on the other hand could not turn around for attacks in the flanks and other manoeuvres quickly enough.

Alexander was a great conquerer, but in my opinion he actually had the advantage. Darius could not easily take his big army along to the west, because usurpers could easily take control then, he needed to rely on satraps, and his army was a combination of various peoples with different customs, languages, their own leaders. It's hard fighting like that against an opponent that is much better organized. The only advantage Darius had was that he had endless funds and supply lines, and Alexander had more problems with that

[Traianvs]

Ps: huns were never great conquerers, they used hit and run tactics... pathetic
almost impossible to counter though..and you don't even need large numbers to crush an army

[Heresson]

OK. Anyone wants to vote on me?
I can send You my civ, Imperialism or EU2 savs, You'll see!

[Velociryx]

Heresson!



-=Vel=-

[OliverFA]

Were are Pizarro? And Cortes?

[GePap]

Originally posted by OliverFA
Were are Pizarro? And Cortes?

Rejected, becuase Smallpox did most of the conquering for both of them. Without half the locals dropping dead neither had a chance in hell to win.

[OliverFA]

I disagree. But anyway, this is your thread.

In that case, were is Smallpox the Conqueror?