"Alexander the Great – the greatest leader of all time?" Topic

"‘My boy, you must find a kingdom big enough for your ambition. Macedon is too small for you', the words of King Phillip II of Macedon were prophetic as he addressed his son Alexander after he had tamed a fearful horse at the age of just 10.

Alexander would grow up to be one of the world's most legendary military commanders. Born into an era of petty tyrants and brutality Alexander the Great used the exceptional education he received – from, among others, Aristotle – and used it to marshal his forces in nearly impossible battles. He emerged victorious over the course of 13 years of battles from which was forged one of the largest empires the world has ever seen.

Alexander the Great was born in 356 BC to King Phillip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Following his father's assassination Alexander succeeded him to the Macedon throne and the 20 year old King ruthlessly murdered all of his rivals to the crown. This ruthlessness would contribute to Alexander conquering most of the known world with an empire that stretched for 10,000 miles and encompassed the Mediterranean, most of Europe and touched the borders of India. Alexander the Great was prone to fits of savage tempers and in later life he succumbed to megalomania…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".

Of course, you can define "Leader" in such a way as to make Alexander the greatest, but when you run into a fan of the "whiff of grapeshot" guy, one of the Central Asian horsemen, or the one-eyed Carthaginian they're going to have their own definitions. Now you're going to be arguing about the definition based on who you each want it to fit. So who cares.

Anyway it's George Washington.

I understand Alexander had a ruthless propaganda and image control machine to make him the effortlessly talented, curly headed golden adonis we think of him as today. I used to admire him but I wonder if he wasn't just a slightly luckier, ruthless mass murderer? I do recall that his central military innovation was to sense where the enemy psychologically felt most vulnerable and then "go" after that spot.

I saw something on Hannibal (History channel?) that he was an awful general but that Rome had to prop him up as a genius in order to explain their own bungling. It was an interesting take on things.

Yeah, why not?

Yes, he was.

Just gotta say, time isn't over yet.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

FDR. And he did it without elephants.

At one time I thought He was,but He ended up out of control and killing off a lot of his rivals. He almost destroyed his own army towards the end, and I believe He was poisoned by his own officers! Just an old senile guys 2 cents worth.