Tweet
Originally posted by Ancyrean
First of all, I’m not saying that I have discovered the “most objective, most complete system to rate the greatest conquerors ever”. Nor did I swear to prove Alexander is the greatest conqueror. I just want the comparison to stand out clearer for the sake of argument. For that purpose, here’s some reflections on what you’ve been saying:
- Previously you advocated we should go by the square-miles-conquered criterion, precisely as to not make things very complicated. That was why, you said, you went along with Napoleon. Lo and behold, Genghis Khan beats everybody here, with or without Louisiana for Napoleon. Isn’t GK credited with creating the greatest land empire ever?
- On the issue of lasting impact, you conceded a tight match between Alexander and Napoleon. Much as I agree with this, I would hazard some speculation here by saying that Alexander’s effect resonated for much longer than Napoleon's, and therefore so many things changed as a result of his legacy, the number of what-ifs (had he not been around) are infinitely more than the what ifs concerning Napoleon. And if that’s a measure of lasting effect, Alexander, alas, has the upper hand.
- You dismissed Alexander’s conquests on the grounds that Persia was a decrepit empire and therefore weak, whereas in Europe Napoleon faced great powers. Persia might have been decrepit but we know it so clearly only today. Then, it was still the world’s greatest empire, admired and feared by everyone including the ancient Greeks and its weaknesses did not liberally advertise itself to invite invasions from all corners of the world. It was a great sense of depth and intuition on the part of Alexander that he calculated it worthwhile to even try conquer it all.
Furthermore, Persia could still field armies many orders of magnitude greater than Alexander’s and that for 3 consecutive times. This was unimpressive for you because Alexander faced incompetent commanders so by implication it was a given he would win every time and that he won is no big deal, whereas Napoleon faced reputable opponents, so had more probability of losing than Alexander, therefore Napoleon pwns. Although this argument has some merit to it, it’s still too presumptive to make this the decisive argument for Napoleon.
- You further claimed Napoleon is greatest if we consider decisiveness of battles/campaigns. This omits the most obvious fact that he was in the end decisively defeated for good, whatever alleviating reasons you can elaborate, with whatever mistakes and misfortunes you can attribute. A conqueror who conquered considerable real estate against considerable odds but who lost it spectacularly in the end can not be the greatest conqueror. It doesn’t come any more simpler than that.
Despite whatever argument you can put against him, Alexander has become a legend. A legend as a conqueror more than anybody else before and after him. Napoleon did not. Napoleon will never inspire as Alexander did and still does.
First of all, I’m not saying that I have discovered the “most objective, most complete system to rate the greatest conquerors ever”. Nor did I swear to prove Alexander is the greatest conqueror. I just want the comparison to stand out clearer for the sake of argument. For that purpose, here’s some reflections on what you’ve been saying:
- Previously you advocated we should go by the square-miles-conquered criterion, precisely as to not make things very complicated. That was why, you said, you went along with Napoleon. Lo and behold, Genghis Khan beats everybody here, with or without Louisiana for Napoleon. Isn’t GK credited with creating the greatest land empire ever?
- On the issue of lasting impact, you conceded a tight match between Alexander and Napoleon. Much as I agree with this, I would hazard some speculation here by saying that Alexander’s effect resonated for much longer than Napoleon's, and therefore so many things changed as a result of his legacy, the number of what-ifs (had he not been around) are infinitely more than the what ifs concerning Napoleon. And if that’s a measure of lasting effect, Alexander, alas, has the upper hand.
- You dismissed Alexander’s conquests on the grounds that Persia was a decrepit empire and therefore weak, whereas in Europe Napoleon faced great powers. Persia might have been decrepit but we know it so clearly only today. Then, it was still the world’s greatest empire, admired and feared by everyone including the ancient Greeks and its weaknesses did not liberally advertise itself to invite invasions from all corners of the world. It was a great sense of depth and intuition on the part of Alexander that he calculated it worthwhile to even try conquer it all.
Furthermore, Persia could still field armies many orders of magnitude greater than Alexander’s and that for 3 consecutive times. This was unimpressive for you because Alexander faced incompetent commanders so by implication it was a given he would win every time and that he won is no big deal, whereas Napoleon faced reputable opponents, so had more probability of losing than Alexander, therefore Napoleon pwns. Although this argument has some merit to it, it’s still too presumptive to make this the decisive argument for Napoleon.
- You further claimed Napoleon is greatest if we consider decisiveness of battles/campaigns. This omits the most obvious fact that he was in the end decisively defeated for good, whatever alleviating reasons you can elaborate, with whatever mistakes and misfortunes you can attribute. A conqueror who conquered considerable real estate against considerable odds but who lost it spectacularly in the end can not be the greatest conqueror. It doesn’t come any more simpler than that.
Despite whatever argument you can put against him, Alexander has become a legend. A legend as a conqueror more than anybody else before and after him. Napoleon did not. Napoleon will never inspire as Alexander did and still does.
"- On the issue of lasting impact, you conceded a tight match between Alexander and Napoleon. Much as I agree with this, I would hazard some speculation here by saying that Alexander’s effect resonated for much longer than Napoleon's, and therefore so many things changed as a result of his legacy, the number of what-ifs (had he not been around) are infinitely more than the what ifs concerning Napoleon. And if that’s a measure of lasting effect, Alexander, alas, has the upper hand. " --- Napoleon's legacy has been heavily felt, but if you are going to use this biased (again) criteria, you would have to wait a few more centuries to fully appreciate Napoleon's influence. The number of what-ifs wouldn't have been greater??? This is such a stupid consideration, why would you even bother?? As I've detailed before, the French Revolutionary Era and the First Empire led to the explosion of nationalism and various other liberal promulgations (like equality and religious toleration). Around 70 nations today base their laws on the Civil Code Napoleon created. Even a US state, Louisana, does so! And it was Napoleon's idea to have odd-numbered houses on one side of the road and the even on the other (which is what you find all across the US). The reason why the "what if" argument is stupid is because we can ask an infinite amount of "what if" questions, some obviously biased. No one would win. Many historians credit Napoleon for initiating the modern world. I tend to agree with them.
"- You dismissed Alexander’s conquests on the grounds that Persia was a decrepit empire and therefore weak, whereas in Europe Napoleon faced great powers. Persia might have been decrepit but we know it so clearly only today. Then, it was still the world’s greatest empire, admired and feared by everyone including the ancient Greeks and its weaknesses did not liberally advertise itself to invite invasions from all corners of the world. It was a great sense of depth and intuition on the part of Alexander that he calculated it worthwhile to even try conquer it all. " --- I dismissed nothing. I recommend you take an examination to determine how sound your brain is before you put more words in my mouth. Didn't I say I'd rank Alexander as second greatest military commander ever? How's that dismissive? Alexander was an uber commander, no doubt about it. I do not know enough to speak authoritatively on how Greeks and Macedonians (or, more importantly, Alexander himself) viewed Persian strength, but something tells me it wasn't as elevated as you say it was. I know very well (and surely they did too) that Persia was internally very weak. A Greek mercenary army immortalized by Xenophon's writings had even served under Cyrus the Younger in his rebellion against Artaxerxes II in 404 BC. Regardless, when Alexander invaded he wasn't concerned at all with Persia's relative weakness or strength. He had the most advanced army in the world and he believed he was related to Zeus. He believed he was destined to do great things, destined to avenge the Persian invasions of Greece about a century and a half ago. I can speculate that he did not think much of Persia. But this "opinion" is not well-nourished and tentative at best.
"Furthermore, Persia could still field armies many orders of magnitude greater than Alexander’s and that for 3 consecutive times. This was unimpressive for you because Alexander faced incompetent commanders so by implication it was a given he would win every time and that he won is no big deal, whereas Napoleon faced reputable opponents, so had more probability of losing than Alexander, therefore Napoleon pwns. Although this argument has some merit to it, it’s still too presumptive to make this the decisive argument for Napoleon." - TWO consecutive times (Issus and Gaugamela), not three. At the Battle of Granicus, Alexander held a 2-to-1 lead in infantry and suffered a 2-to-1 deficiency in cavalry. "Unimpressive for me" haha....because I adore Napoleon's exploits it makes Alexander "unimpressive" in my eyes?? Wow you must know me better than I do. Unfortunately this forum hasn't warranted the opportunity (ie. most of the time in the past few pages has been spent discussing whether Napoleon was or wasn't the greatest), but I'm always very loving towards Alexander. Now I'm at least glad that you acknowledged that Napoleon warred against relatively tougher opponents. I mean, the Persian satraps at Granicus were completely consumed by hate and desire for glory to listen to Memnon's reasonable admonishments. I haven't exclusively used this argument to place Napoleon above Alexander; it's merely been one among many in my repertoire (and some points I haven't yet specified, for reasons mentioned above).
"- You further claimed Napoleon is greatest if we consider decisiveness of battles/campaigns. This omits the most obvious fact that he was in the end decisively defeated for good, whatever alleviating reasons you can elaborate, with whatever mistakes and misfortunes you can attribute. A conqueror who conquered considerable real estate against considerable odds but who lost it spectacularly in the end can not be the greatest conqueror. It doesn’t come any more simpler than that." --- Presumably then, you're using the "most square miles conquered" argument which just a few moments you accused me of doing when I hadn't. This would place Genghis Khan at the top. THAT'S what can't get any simpler all-right.....
If the Persian Empire was so broken, how could it field so large armies battle after battle despite being severely defeated each time and losing more land, treasure and resources everytime?
Comment