iansales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 3,447
i was just going to mention parmenion as well.
Ours. And yes, I may well be biased.
Look at it this way, things that grow quickly tend to die quickly. Oak trees take bloody ages to reach full size, whereas buckler fern is much swifter, and grass quicker still. But the oak lives the longest.
Mind you, Rome did pretty well too. (Although that's complicated because of the various political systems and the division of the empire).
Back to greatest general: I think the criteria shouldn't just be success, but capability. That's why Hannibal wins. He did the most with the least means. I know Alexander faced far more Persians than Hannibal did Romans, but the Persians were largely rubbish compared to the Romans who were hard as nails. In addition, the Romans learnt from their mistakes.
I've never seen 300, though the mindless violence does look fun.
Alexander gave them a thrashing at various battles. He won passage over the Granicus (where, as someone else pointed out, Memnon could well've stopped him) then won at Arbela and, er, another place whose name eludes me. The Persians also failed to occupy and defend numerous key mountain forts, and when they did (when Darius was fleeing for his life) Alexander managed to defeat them anyway.
Yay for us!
We accumulated though and it lasted some time.
Genghis expaned swiftly and declined swiftly! Which is the greater achievement?
Yay for us!
We accumulated though and it lasted some time.
Genghis expaned swiftly and declined swiftly! Which is the greater achievement?
You have to be really biased to compare Ghengis great empire to a sea empire specially since he beated nations with an army that was smaller in number than the population in a avreage big british city
That is the real impressive thing with Ghengis and his Mongols. They never were that many and still conquered a huge part of the world.
If they had the number of people The Romans had, they would have an empire that lasted for centuries.