who is a better general?
altho chengaz was againt muslisma nd damaged them a lot i i have serious admiration for this man
any way discuss who was a better general
Changis in my opinion.
Alexander took over a crumbling empire and got an empire put together piece by piece by others before him.
changiz fought more than one mighty empire and got the pieces together by himself.
-----------------------------------------------
"No one gets outta here alive"
Jim Morrison
Both were barbaric and both destroyed great cities and cultures. But Alexander managed to get his own Hollywood film so i'd say Alex
---
They dance tsifte-teli, sit on lounges, drink coffee & ouzo and eat feta, doner, dolmades, baklava, mezes, tzatziki, imam-baildi, souvlaki, moussakas etc.
but Alexander had behind him a great civilization and he diffused that
and he was too a master for future military and politicians
I'm not sure anyone could say the same for the Great Khan
bor and gread in Swiss but his mother is from Philippines
Danny Mendez, Miss Italia 1996 and Alessia Marcuzzi, from Rome, showgirl
Anonymous (Login AyYildizli) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: alexander vs chengaz/gengaz khan
December 27 2005, 9:16 PM
Cengiz Khan of course !!!!!
alexander did not have many adverseries in his time... He didn't have to fight very much people ! only persians... we can't say he was great general
Pointless, Alexander would have been raped sideways...
He had one tactic, Phalanx formation, and all other such battles were surrounded around this formation. Now he had flanking companion cavalry, they were by any standard light, compared to the medieval cavalry and latter. The entire horde basicaly on horse back, and most used the bow, any fool of a general would have slaughtered the companion cavalry with eqaully qualified mounted warriors, and unlike the now mongol warriors who have stirrups, they would have a massive advantage, they could run and shoot arrows, facing backwards. And how do you suppose this army now defends from huge attacks on its flanks by light cavalry armed with bows? they couldn't, anyone that knows about the Phalanx formation knows that was its greatest weakness, its lack of defence on its flanks. And how would it survive hail of arrows and front on assaults from fast moveing horse archers? Exactly they couldn't
So there you have it, Alexander's classical aged army would have been molested side ways by the Medieval Mongol horde... just like every other European army that faced it did, but then again, we hadn't had our guns just yet...
“You are standing opposite to the most dangerous, fanatic enemy of German existence, German honour and German reputation in the world: The Poles.” - Deutscher Ostmarkenverein
Both were barbaric and both destroyed great cities and cultures. But Alexander managed to get his own Hollywood film so i'd say Alex
----------------------------------------------------
So did genghis Khan starring John Wayne. Also the film came out before Alexander so i say Genghis LOL
I don't think its fair to compare the two one on one. You can say Persia was a crumbling empire but the truth of the matter is that both generals exploited empires that were corrupt and declining but numerically superior.
Comparing the two is too anachronistic. The innovation of horses with stirrups obviously would make the Mongol cavarly far superior, but this is an innovation that changed warfare everywhere and simply was not around in ancient times. This equipment does not make Ghengis a superior general to Alexander. Both were great generals who used tactical genius to dominate their respectic eras and not lose any battles. The only thing I give to Ghengis over Alexander is that Alexander's father was responsible for most of the military innovations of the Macedonian army whereas Ghengis came up with his own....but Alexander put them into practice perfectly and added a few of his own on the way.
Remember this also.....Alexander died at the age of 32....Ghengis had barely gotten started at that age. Who knows what Alexander might have done if he lived as long as Ghengis...
Pointless, Alexander would have been raped sideways...
Boy you sound so sure...
He had one tactic, Phalanx formation, and all other such battles were surrounded around this formation. Now he had flanking companion cavalry, they were by any standard light, compared to the medieval cavalry and latter.
I think you should read up on that a little. Companion cavalry is HEAVY cavalry as they were shock troops and were only used as such. Furthermore, in Alexanders 4 major battles his cavalry (companions + Thessalians + Sarissophoroi) were not "flanking the phalanx" like you say. They charged in the middle of the enemy formation reaching for the center. How much more "shock" than that can you get?
Alexander's strength was his cavalry. The phalanx under his command was not the meat grinder that some falsely believe, it was there to lock in on the bulk of the enemy and hold them engaged so that the cavalry would deliver the decisive blow.
Also, Alexander devised numerous bold and pioneering tactics and stratagems as he fought many more battles / sieges than the 4 major battles you may have heard of. He always came up with a plan and pulled it off, no matter what the obstacles.
The entire horde basicaly on horse back, and most used the bow, any fool of a general would have slaughtered the companion cavalry with eqaully qualified mounted warriors, and unlike the now mongol warriors who have stirrups, they would have a massive advantage, they could run and shoot arrows, facing backwards. And how do you suppose this army now defends from huge attacks on its flanks by light cavalry armed with bows? they couldn't, anyone that knows about the Phalanx formation knows that was its greatest weakness, its lack of defence on its flanks. And how would it survive hail of arrows and front on assaults from fast moveing horse archers? Exactly they couldn't
Woah... Slow down a bit. First of all Horse Archers are no first, nor are they God's gift to mankind. Alexander dealt with them in Bactria and came out clean. The fool Crassus got whipped at Carrhae by the Parthians but less than a generation later the Romans came back and subdued them. And mind you the Romans didn't have any worthwhile cavalry like Alexander did. The Mongols were great warriors but they fought against scattered, differently styled, poorly led, largely surprised, corrupt with luxury and decaying armies both in Islam and Europe. They didn't face the professionalism of the Triumvitae Romans or Alexander. Not that they wouldn't be surprised also, but they would have come back with an adjusted plan like they always did. Both Alexander and the late republic - early empire Romans were resilient hardcore professionals and very different to what the Mongols faced.
And don't forget: There were always nomadic migrations from the east. And nomads were always good riders and good archers. When the classical world of antiquity was at its best (as with Alexander) nomads were no threat.
So there you have it, Alexander's classical aged army would have been molested side ways by the Medieval Mongol horde... just like every other European army that faced it did, but then again, we hadn't had our guns just yet...
If there were guns then Mongols would have been great marksmen on their horses and would still win the day against those no-goods who faced them. Put Alexander or Hannibal or Julius Caesar or Sulla or Belissarius against them and the whole affair may turn out very differently, regardless of age and technology.
All enemies have weaknesses. The Mongols just didn't stay long enough to have theirs exposed. Even an infantry army can force horse archers to expend their arrows to a waste if smartly armored/protected. And then what? The horse archers have to flee. But if they lose the important ground - hills, rivers, wells, pastures for their horses - they lose the war.
Nomadic armies are very earth bound - because of their horses. This makes BlitzKrieg campaigning a must for them. If you stop their rapid advance they are in deep trouble because they can’t support the horses for too long. Amateurs speak tactics. Professionals speak Logistics. And men like Alexander or Julius Caesar were genius logisticians.
Pffft.. Everyone with the Mongols... Why don't you ask the Japanese and they'll tell you how they raped them. TWICE!
Cheers,
Miltos
AIEN ARISTEYEIN!
This message has been edited by miltos75 on Jan 20, 2006 10:03 AM
and what if Alexander would'a made it to Japan?!
only if he knew how good the Japs were in RAPING....!!!!
I understand Alexander is not very popular in Iran, so I will ignore the silly sexual connotation and reply to your first sentence.
Good question. I have great respect for the Japanese fighting spirit.
The only thing I can say is Alexander had a much better naval arm than the Mongols and admiral Nearchus would be less likely to lose half the fleet/army to storms. So landing full-force on Japan would have allowed for glorious battles there, not the raping that the Mongols were subjected to.
as I said before I thing Chnagiz faced some mighty empires whereas Alexander only fight the crumbling Pesians!
Not really, Alexander faced various opponents, all with success. To the north of Macedonia he campaigned against Illyrians, Tribalians, Thrakians. In mainland Greece and Ionia he faced hoplite Greeks. Against the Great king he faced everything from Scythian Chariots and war elephants to Medes, Arabs, Parthians, Egyptians etc. In Tyre he besieged and took the most impossible island fortification city. In Kurdistan / Afghanistan he faced the most fearsome guerilla tactics. In India he faced hordes of Elephants.
Didn't he get raped by the Indians BTW?!
Huh? No!? There was the battle of Hydapses where the Indian Raja Porus had taken positions on the other side of the river. Alexander not only pulled off the impossible crossing, but won the day against the mighty opponent and his numerous forces.
He stopped in India only after his men practically said: NO MORE! We want to go home!
Though always outnumbered, no man ever beat him, only sickness.
Boy we sure have one nationalistic greek here. The mongol empire was 4 times the size of alexander's. And it is the largest land empire in history. Enough said.
They weren't called the "devil's horsemen" for nothing.
The mongols defeated armies that often outnumbered them 4:1. I wonder how much they would have annihilated alexander's small army.
And oh, the japanese didn't "rape" the mongols twice. They were lucky enough to be in an island, were hurricanes can save their butts.
----------------------------------------------- YOU
...in fact, the mongols landed at their first attempt and defeated the Japanese:
The Mongol invasion of Japan, lead by Kublai Khan, was the only severe threat to Japan from abroad prior to World War II. Kublai Khan came to power in 1260, succeeding a successful line of Great Khans including his grandfather, Genghis Khan, his uncle Ogedei, and his brother Mongke. By the time Kublai came to rule, the Mongols had already conquered a vast territory spreading throughout North China, Persia, Central Asia, Russia, and partly into the Middle East. During the earlier years of his reign, Kublai encircled Southern Song almost to the sea, and Korea was a hopeless match against the Mongol army. Once Kublai had Korea completely under his power, he placed his eyes on Japan, the only country in the East that remained free from Mongol rule. Although some believe that Kublai was attracted by the fabled gold and pearls of Japan, Kublai most likely desired to perfect the economic and military isolation of South China by bringing Japan under his control (Hori 243).
In early 1268, a letter sent by Kublai Khan reached Japan, threatening the country to either submit by paying tribute or suffer invasion. Although offended by the demands of the letter, the nobles of the court at Kyoto were ready to surrender since they were terrified by the Mongol threat. However, during this period, administrative power rested not on the emperor, but on the military regime. The Kamakura shogunate, headed by Hojo Tokimune, plainly refused to submit since they had no interest in foreign contacts. All the foreign products Japan needed were imported from South China, which was then under Mongol attack. On top of that, the Zen Monks of South China provided counsel for the Japanese on which Japan depended greatly. Therefore, without hesitation, Japan ignored the letters that were sent by Kublai Khan. This, however, did not imply that Japan was confident of defending their country against the Mongol invasion. Due to their fear of invasion, the nobles of the court presented earnest prayers at the temples and shrines. The military leaders united to defend the country, establishing and strengthening their defense in the northwestern coast of Kyushu.
The first Mongol invasion of Japan occurred in 1274. In November, an armada of nearly 900 vessels containing more than 40,000 troops was dispatched from Korea. The armada demolished Tsushima and Iki islands and arrived at Hakata Bay on November 18th. On the following day, the troops landed on the bay and fought the Japanese defense on land. The Japanese were no match for the Mongol's cavalry tactics and weaponry including their small explosive bombs, which the Japanese had never encountered before. The Japanese defense had no choice but to retreat to a fortress near Dazaifu. That night, when the Mongols retired to their ships, a severe storm hit the island, sinking 200 ships and killing over 13,000 Mongol soldiers. As a result, the remaining armada retreated back to Korea, ending in an unsuccessful invasion.
The Japanese referred to this miraculous wind as the Kamikaze (divine wind), and believe that their island was protected by the gods. Although the country was saved by the storm, the invasion proved that the Japanese were no match against the Mongol on land or sea. As a result, the Japanese strengthened their army in fear of another invasion, and constructed a stone wall, 20km long, along the coast of Hakata Bay. Kublai Khan, on the other hand, never gave up on Japan and renewed his demands of Japan in 1275 through envoys sent to Japan.
"alexander was outnumbered in every single battle he fought. he invaded asia with a 45,000 men army, a good 4 times smaller than the persian army."
I was merely using it as an argument. Both Alexander's and Genghis Khan's Army defeated their enemies that outnumbered them. Genghis wouldn't even have to deal with quantity disadvantages against the greeks.
Alexander invaded "asia"? Maybe parts of it...
----------------------------------------------- YOU
Cyborg, you really don't know a lot for a guy who asserts his bad opinions so strongly. Alexander created his empire without one loss by the age of 32! Number 1, Ghengis Khan didnt even get started until he was about 40. Number 2, that map you show of the Mongol conquests were not all accomplished by Ghengis Khan himself or even during his lifetime. The area he conquered himself was a mere fraction of what you are showing which is actually the conquest of Ghengis and his successors combined. Go back to your textbooks and read a bit.
Cyborg, you really don't know a lot for a guy who asserts his bad opinions so strongly. Alexander created his empire without one loss by the age of 32! Number 1, Ghengis Khan didnt even get started until he was about 40.
"When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch
"Cyborg, you really don't know a lot for a guy who asserts his bad opinions so strongly. Alexander created his empire without one loss by the age of 32! Number 1, Ghengis Khan didnt even get started until he was about 40. Number 2, that map you show of the Mongol conquests were not all accomplished by Ghengis Khan himself or even during his lifetime. The area he conquered himself was a mere fraction of what you are showing which is actually the conquest of Ghengis and his successors combined. Go back to your textbooks and read a bit."
Oh gees, what sour grapes. You don't really know much yourself.
First of all, i don't believe in any AMRY of any time that never lost in any battle. It is utterly ridiculous, historians from both the east and the west just overrate people like Genghis' and Alexander's accomplishments. Second i wonder why alexander is called the "great", while genkhis is known as a barbarian, hmmm.
It is also true that the mongol conquest were not all accomplished by genghis, but in the end, he was the one that united his nation, so he takes most of the credit, which he deserves.
The "area" he conquered himself, was the largest land empire ever built in a lifetime.
Oh gee, looks like someone has to go do some more reading himself.
And yeah, who cares about the age? He couldn't even last lost, so what's your point?
----------------------------------------------- YOU
My point, which I unfortunately have to spell out for people like you who lack the ability to reason, is that when you are comparing the accomplishments of generals, you have to look at the fact that Alexander the Great did it in a short period of time, all by the age of 32 which means if he had lived to age 70 as did Ghengis, he would have conquered even more. There was no power at that time who could withstand his military genius. Julius Causer himself was always bothered by the fact that he never measured up to Alexander because Alexander had done it all before Caeser even got started.
Alexander died from disease after suffering many wounds fighting in the front lines, something very few generals have ever had the guts to do. And yes, he won every single battle he ever fought. Check the sources, he did not lose one.
I give credit to both generals as being military geniuses. I have read biographies on both and admired their tactics but the truth is no conqueror has ever accomplished as much as Alexander the Great by the age of 32.
This message has been edited by Thucydides on Jan 23, 2006 9:12 PM
but the truth is no conqueror has ever accomplished as much as Alexander the Great by the age of 32.
That's because Alexander started young. Not all generals began conquering at the age of twenty. Julius Caesar had already passed the age of 32 before he began his campaigns.
Now I'm not denying that Alexander was a great general, to proclaim him as greatest simply because of his young age is ridiculous.
"When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch
"My point, which I unfortunately have to spell out for people like you who lack the ability to reason, is that when you are comparing the accomplishments of generals, you have to look at the fact that Alexander the Great did it in a short period of time, all by the age of 32 which means if he had lived to age 70 as did Ghengis, he would have conquered even more. There was no power at that time who could withstand his military genius. Julius Causer himself was always bothered by the fact that he never measured up to Alexander because Alexander had done it all before Caeser even got started.
Alexander died from disease after suffering many wounds fighting in the front lines, something very few generals have ever had the guts to do. And yes, he won every single battle he ever fought. Check the sources, he did not lose one.
I give credit to both generals as being military geniuses. I have read biographies on both and admired their tactics but the truth is no conqueror has ever accomplished as much as Alexander the Great by the age of 32."
Wow, you lack the ability to "reason" to be as arrogant as you are. I knew you were gonna bring up age. LMAO
You can speculate all you want, of how much more he could have accomplished/conquered if he didn't die, but the fact is, he couldn't conquer his disease.
And keep believing he didn't lose one battle, that is BULL. I don't believe in that one bit. What "source"? From which historian?
----------------------------------------------- YOU
man you are dumb.......every account will show you that he did not lose one battle. I put the burden on you to show me otherwise. The fact that you are in such disbelief at this truth shows what an incredible general he was. And yes it is impressive that he did it by the age of 32....the reason being that all those other generals did not get started earlier because they did not have the ability to do it yet. Alexander was able to lead armies in his teens under his father and then started his famous conquest at age 20. Show me one other conqueror who did that.
"man you are dumb.......every account will show you that he did not lose one battle. I put the burden on you to show me otherwise. The fact that you are in such disbelief at this truth shows what an incredible general he was. And yes it is impressive that he did it by the age of 32....the reason being that all those other generals did not get started earlier because they did not have the ability to do it yet. Alexander was able to lead armies in his teens under his father and then started his famous conquest at age 20. Show me one other conqueror who did that."
You're even dumber to believe it like you've witness it yourself. Historians from both the east and the west just tend to exagerate things. I will never believe in any army of any time that never lost in any battle in history. If that were the case for alexander, i would say, the greek empire should have been much much larger than it was.
Also, you can't shut up about the age. Guess what, the mongols influence was only regional, until a young military genius, named Temujin(Genghis Khan) came along. He avenge his father's death, and defeated their enemy the Tartars. He gradually brought all the nomadic tribes of mongolia under his control. Then of course, the empire became the largest land empire in history.
Genghis Khan had a rough childhood, while the spoiled alexander had everything. His daddy already built the macedon empire. Alexander is one egotistical SOB who thought of himself as a god. LOL
One more thing, Alexander probably did just as much atrocities as did Genghis/Atilla, yet he is known as "the great", and the two are known as barbarians? WTF? F*cking biased historians.
----------------------------------------------- YOU
Lakedaimon, first of all I barely put any real thought into my arguement, if you saw, I was simply stating that Alexander would have not deafeated the Mongol Horde as much as you want. On your comment on disciplined troops facing the mongols, you don't seem to realise they faced a standing, well trained Persian army that numbered 3 times their size (the actual army itself), and massacred it. They also faced a arguably strong order of warrior monks, the Teutonic Knights, who by medieval standards were very grand fighters, and managed to massacre them too. And unlike Alexander and other generals of that time period, the Mongols didn't just face armies on the battle field, win and go home, they harrassed, ambushed and picked off men. Attrition was a useful tactic, that Alexander could not defend against, nor could the Romans (Parthians and the Huns are the best examples of this), the Greeks were NOT a civilisation built on horse mobility, like the Nomad Mongols.
Also your some what strange comment on Companion cavalry being heavy. If you read my comment, I said by "Medieval standards" Companion cavalry were not heavy, they would have been medium at best. ALso you neglected to comment on the invention of the stirrup, and completely neglected that Alexanders army didn't have them. If you know anything about horse riding, you would realise this is a massive disadvantage... I won't explain it, but you can read about it here...
Ok, now lets get back on your argument that Alexander would stand a chance against the the Khan. I give credit were it is due, and try not to be baised, so i'll take your comments of the cavalry were the strength of Alexander, since you would know more then I on the matter. We are talking about an army, that would have lets say (using your 45,000 strong figure stated earlier) 30,000 -35,000 men in the infantry role, the remander can be calvary, this is using the at best figures. Now lets compare the army he would face. Remember these are world famous horse warriors, they use a modern riding aid that allows them to control their mount much more effciently. They can punish the enemy with versitile tactics like 'Parthian tactics' and are 'mobilised' so to speak, they can lay ambushes much easier and with greater effect, they can harrass Alexanders army for days before any encounter, and Alexander, how would he defend against it? (I'm using simple tactics Mongols used to win their wars/battles). You now claim that the mongols would have problems like supplies, due to their nomadic lifestyle. Thats ridiculous, because remember, these are men that have travelled hundreds to thousands of kilometres away from their 'homeland', and they seem to find enough food around from pillaging and growing there own (why yes, mongols actually did settle down and force their vassels to grow food for them).
Quote: Genghis Khan added the one necessary ingredient, which was strict discipline, to his armies which were similar to many armies of the steppes during the time
I'm tired and its late, sorry for the late reply, but you might actually see, at its height and power not many armies stood infront of the Mongols and won, not even the Persians that Alexander beat too, go figure.
“Hitler was a national-socialist, that doesn't make any sense”
“Neither do panda's… If pandas are from mountainous areas of China and Tibet, how come they eat bamboo, which is prone to grow only in drier, more arid regions?”
Huh? No!? There was the battle of Hydapses where the Indian Raja Porus had taken positions on the other side of the river. Alexander not only pulled off the impossible crossing, but won the day against the mighty opponent and his numerous forces.
He stopped in India only after his men practically said: NO MORE! We want to go home!
Though always outnumbered, no man ever beat him, only sickness.
Cheers,
Miltos
Very simplistic account of the Macedonian experience in India!
The "Indian Raja Porus" was the ruler of a frontier kingdom...against whom the Macedonians-Greeks made such a great effort. They believed him to be the ruler of India and were shocked when they learnt the truth.
They were truly frightened when they were told that the main Indian Empire of Magadha had a much larger army of even more ferocious elephants. This intimidated the Greeks to such an extent that they refused to march any further...their morale was shattered. Alexander avoided mainland India and marched along the Indus River to the sea...and even here the numerous Indian republics gave his army a tough time...nearly killing Alex in one battle.
To claim that the soldiers rebelled because they were "homesick" or "tired of ceaseless war" is laughable.
Too many oversimplistic analyses going on here. Certainly the larger numbers in India must have been a factor considering the fatigue of the troops, but large numbers never dissuaded Alexander's troops from conquering Persia. It was more the inhospitable weather conditions with constant rains that made the troops tire of constant battle. Also plenty of them had become rich and wanted to go home. The incentive wasn't there.
I have always thought it was totally pointless for Alexander to conquer Bactria and Sogdiana. He should have focused his empire with Pella and his own people as the center and gone no further than Persia. But he was an explorer. He established cities. And yes, I must say again he never lost one battle. This is in many sources, including the Athenians who hated his guts.
For his time, he was actually an enlightened ruler.....again you guys have made too many anachronistic analyses. He established cities, allowed many locals to rule, wanted to fuse Greek and Persian culture (a bit naive), was well educated by Aristotle, and was only ruthless when a town refused to surrender and that was rare. Most of the time he left them off the hook when they would pledge their allegiance.
Ghengis is viewed as more barbaric because fo the way he dressed, lived, lack of education, destruction of more civilised culture such as Arabs, Chinese. Ultimately however, his empire fused the cultures it conquered and became enlightend by the time of Kubilai Khan. Ghengis Khan is impressive for his own reasons and I do not detract from his accomplishments.
But ultimately Alexander had a vision that was more inspirational and left a more admired imprint in the minds of people for generations to come.
Lame article with a catchy title to get people to read it. Of course Greek culture had already spread to the Levant coast. The point is that he took it as far as Persia, India, Bactria, and Sogdiana. The kingdoms that folowed his rule entrenched it further and this torch was carried by the Romans and Byzantines until Arab culture supplanted most of it. The Arabs then carried the torch, copying many of the ancient Greek works while Europe was in darkness. Then the Turks and Mongols came along and learning went into the toilet wherever they went, sinking the Balkans, Arab world, and China into depression, while the Western Europeans took the torch, had a Renaissance based on ancient Greek humanism, built big boats and conquered the world economy.
A few Greek vases in Lebanon does not detract from the impact of Alexander the Great on world history or his accomplishments as a general. Everyone knows the ancient Greeks were trading with Egyptians and Phoenicians well before Alexander, so what.
This message has been edited by Thucydides on Jan 25, 2006 12:59 AM
Is greek civilization even the oldest living one??? No, so save your annoying nationalistic crap elsewhere. The world was doing okay way way before alexander was even born.
----------------------------------------------- YOU
Quote:Too many oversimplistic analyses going on here. Certainly the larger numbers in India must have been a factor considering the fatigue of the troops, but large numbers never dissuaded Alexander's troops from conquering Persia. It was more the inhospitable weather conditions with constant rains that made the troops tire of constant battle. Also plenty of them had become rich and wanted to go home. The incentive wasn't there.
How hospitable was the weather on the burning sands of Syria or in the icy wastes of Bactria? These are just excuses brought up by modern apologists of Alex.
Bottomline is that after several years of campaigning the Greek army was undefeated and had superb morale...they were not even remotely homesick.
But after only A FEW MONTHS in India they suddenly became unnerved, demoralized, and anxious to go home...what does that tell you?
It tells me that there was a mutiny because the soldiers had no interest in continuing the campaign into India when they already had all the riches they needed. Yes the Indians gave a tough battle, but Alexander won a masterpiece at the Battle of Hydaspes and thoroughly routed Porus. Honestly, I think it was as big a waste of time as his soldiers did. They already had a rich empire, they had no reason to go to India. They rather needed to focus their attention in the West. Alexander died 3 days before he was to set off on a major expedition through the coast of Arabia in search of a water route to Egypt followed by a conquest of Carthage.
Anyway, you guys are just bitter Alexander haters.....just tip your cap to someone who accomplished more than you could ever hope to in a lifetime 3 times as long.
That is a weak azz argument. Noone in todays world will ever be like Alexander, oh yeah there was one that tried to be, i think his name was Hitler. LMAO
Way to go for trying to take the credit fo the european rise pal. "greek humanism, built big boats, and conquer the world economy" LMAO
----------------------------------------------- YOU
Quote:It tells me that there was a mutiny because the soldiers had no interest in continuing the campaign into India when they already had all the riches they needed.
I see...so they enter the Indian sub-continent, fight ferociously with the "King of India", defeat and later make an honorable peace with him, and then set off to reach the ocean.
However when they are told that the "King of India" was only a frontier king, and that much bigger kingdoms lay ahead, and towering over them all was an even bigger empire of Magadha...they suddenly want to go home?
Little girls run home to mommy when they are scared...even grown men think of home when they are scared, nervous, and demoralized.
No, its called using a major river to secure your border, making sure you have a friendly kindgdom next to you and not overextending. Word of Alexander's victory would spread to neighboring states and those sent diplomats to him with gifts.
I am a great admirer of Alexander. He was almost superhuman, but by the time they reached the Hydroxes (Sutlej)his men werent. It is true that the strength of the Magadhan Empire would have been to much for the Greeks.
Just a decade or so later Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha conquered Punjab and Sindh from Selucus Nicator and out of of fear Selucus gave him Afghanistan as a gift...together with the hand of his daughter in marriage.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
It is possible, but you cannot compare Alexander at that point to Seleucis Nicator ten years later after multiple succession wars, no Egypt,no Greece, and no Anatolia.....India had ten years after hearing of Alexander to deal with Seleucis. I grant that conquering India would have been a monumental task, but considering his track record I do nto think one can say 100% Alexander would not have succeeded. Like you said, either way, he can be respected for how much he had already accomplished. Going deep into India would have been stretching the empire too far and even if he had won in battle, I doubt he could have retained meaningful control over such a large territory miles away. My guess is he would have been successful in battle regardless of the size of force (he had already shown he could beat forces much larger and now had Persian mercenaries trained in Macedonian warfare to go with the Greeks) but holding these territories would not have been practical or possible in the long term.
Alexander was the greatest military strategist as well as the bravest warrior of his age, but even he would not have been able to topple the power of Magadha.
The armies of India were just as large as those of the Persians. Whereas the Persians relied upon archery as their main force India also had archers of the same capability and thousands of elephants on top of it.
If the poor frontier Raja Paurava (Porus) could put up a fight with the Greeks, then the well disciplined and well provisioned army of Magadha would have rooted the Greeks.
Let us remember that the Magadha Empire unnder Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusara Maurya and Ashoka Vardhana Maurya was the strongest indigenous military force ever to have been raised by Indians. It was the only time in history that the entire subcontinent was united under an Indian king and not only that but it was expanded into Central Asia.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
I would not put so much stock in having tons of elephants. Alexander dealt with them already and knew how to scare them away. Alexander was a brilliant strategist who knew how to adjust to changes in conditions. Alexander now had experience againt Indian armies. What ultimately mattered was not numbers but battle tactics. Alexander was also good at playing local rivals against each other and then making the one he helped an ally as a locally ruling satrap. We will never know who would have won, but one thing for sure is that it would have been an excellent battle(s). I will read more about Magadha and its battle tactics since my knowledge of Indian history is flimsy.
What is hard to believe is that Alexander thought the end of the world/great ocean would come right after India.....didn't anyone tell him about China? No one in West India knew about China?
The west did not know about China in that age. Not even India knew about China.
Its not just elephants. As I said before Magadha had everything Persia did (archers, chariots horseman), and elephants and in much larger numbers than Persia.
Porus was a poor frontier Raja who himself paid tribute to the Persian Satrap of Gandhara before Alexander defeated him. You can not compare him with Magadha, and even then Alexander was impressed by his bravery and knowledge of warfare.
If elephants were not important, why were the 300 elephants Seleucus recieved from Chandragupta Maurya so vital in his defeating a coalition of successor kings ten years later?
But as I said before Alexander was superhuman, who knows he may have been able to beat the odds and defeat the Nandas of Magadha. He was able to overcome huge odds before and might have done it again, but the condition and low morale of his army combined with the hot humid climate of India and the vastly superior army of Magadha may have been able to end his illustrious career.
Once Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Nandas and took over the Magadha Emipre he expanded it in all directions. Seleucus(once he became King of Asia) had been in India before and had seen Porus' army defeated by the Greeks. He thought that Indians were weak and lacked any snse of unity.
He was in for a surprise on the banks of the Indus when the Maurya army rooted his Persian and Greek troops. He realized that it would be futile for him to try and conquer India when easier conquests were to be had in Syria and Asia Minor.
Chandragupta presented him an offer. All of the trans-Indus region upto Persia proper (Including what is toady Kabul, Kandahar, Balochistan and Herat) and south of the watershed of the Hindukush. Thus Gandhara, Arachosia and Gedrosia fell to the Mauryas. Seluecus also gave his daughetr to be a wife of Chandragupta(one condition being that her children could not inherit the throne).
Why did the Greeks lose so miserably to the Mauryas? It was because Seleucus was no Alexander. The fact that Indian soldiers were familiar with Macedonian tactics by then also played a part. Once the Greek cavalry was taken care of by Indian cavalry and archers the mighty phalanxes collapsed like a deck of cards before the war elephants. It was only because of cavalry attacks, during which the Macedonians slashed the elephants legs and trunks, that Alexander was able to defeat Porus.
But the army of Magadha was not a tiny little frontier militia like that of Porus and so the mighty Seleucus was not merely defeated in his designs to conquer India, but also lost Afghanistan and his daughter. He accquired a few elephants though and these made all the difference in his western campaignes.
The moral of the story is that the Indians had learned and were used to Greek military tactics, but the elephant warfare Seluecus learned in India helped him wreak havoc in the eastern meditaranean because they did not know Indian tactics.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
Thank you for some historical background on the Seleucid kingdom. It's refreshing to read a post that is actually educated on here. Well done. There was a point in time where elephant were rendered completely useless in warfare. Have any idea when and why? How useful were they to Hannibal a century later?
Im not a historian, its just a hobby of mine since childhood.
The elephant basically became obsolete with the introduction of firearms, artillery more specifically. Even then in India and Southeast Asia they were used well into the nineteenth century.
Hannibal did a stupid thing by taking his elephants over the alps. Most of them died in the snows, but the handful that made it to Italy helped him in his decade long campagn of terror in northern Italy.
You have to remember that Hannibals elephants were a pygmy version of the African elephant that used to live in Morocco, but is today extinct. It was just a bit bigger than a camel and small compared to the Asiatic elephant and tiny compared to the sub-Saharan African elephant. Even then it inspired terror both amongst the Celtic tribes of the Alps and the Romans.
The elephant was the tank of its day. And you have to give Alexander credit for facing them. The modern day equivalent would be guys with assault rifles riding motorbikes attacking tanks!
As for the Great Khan. He was truly great. His mixture of blitzkrieg tactics with terror after the battle was won made him the ruler of the largest land based empire man has ever seen.
His conquests in Afghanistan especially were extremely brutal. The Hazara ethnic group was formed when he ordered all of the people of Bamian to be slaughtered and only beautiful women were spared. These women were then used as comfort girls by the Mongols during their campaign in the region. The result being the Hazaras. Iranic by language and culture, but clearly Mongol by appearance.
Anyway he was also more benign at times, but when viewed in a modern light if Alexander was Napolean, then Chengiz Khan was Hitler.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
"Hannibal did a stupid thing by taking his elephants over the alps. Most of them died in the snows, but the handful that made it to Italy helped him in his decade long campagn of terror in northern Italy."
Not entirely accurate. Only one elephant made it over the Alps, and either way elephants to the Romans were not a large threat considering the Romans had learned how to deal with them by then.
"When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch
The Romans never had much expirience fighting elephants. The Romans never fought in India and the Carthiginians only learned about elephant warfare from reading Greek texts.
The Romans had probably never seen elephants at that point because they did not even control Syria at that time, let alone North Africa.
So the one elephant was used more for inspiring awe and fear amongst average Roman legionaires who had never seen one before. And more importantly to scare away villagers so that Hannibals army could steal their food...
And as I stated before this elephant was not a massive giant like the Asiatic or African variety but a pygmy species from Morocco which has subsequently died out.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
''And as I stated before this elephant was not a massive giant like the Asiatic or African variety but a pygmy species from Morocco which has subsequently died out''
This is correct but the Romans had fighting experience against elephants. Around 280 when Pyrrus of Epirus was in Italy he brought with him some Elephants but they were little help for him.
By the way this war was the first sign for the Greeks that the Romans were not like other people. When Pyrrus was observing the Roman army constructing and preparing their camp he said: ''Those Barbarians are different''...
This message has been edited by Sfodrias on Jan 30, 2006 3:47 AM
Yes, the camels were used by the Arabs in large numbers during their first battles against the Byzantines and the Persians. This is one of the reasons why the Arabs generally stopped their expansion when they met high Mountains and alpine conditions, the desert camel was not effective there. This how the Byzantines managed to stop the Arabs in Asia Minor, the border was the Taurus mountains
like sfordrias already wrote, the Romans were by that time very well aware of elephants. Both victories that Pyrrhus scored against the Romans were due to his elephants. Does the term Pyhrric voctory ring a bell?
To those who spit Alexander-envy,
I enjoy reading remarks about how the sources are flawed and you don't believe them (who are YOU?). It's also funny to call someone a biased greek because he states that Alexander was never beaten. This is a fact. You OTOH believe he would have been raped against all facts, and this opinion is not biased.. Kindergarden arguments...
As for stirrups, you either put Alex on stirrups or Genghis off of them. Or else the US Marines are the most fearsome army in history simply becayse of 2800yrs of technology going for them. DUH!?
Thuc & Darada,
The question of India is very different than the original question of this thread. I don't believe Alex would have made it in India. It was probably fortunate for him that the mutiny occured when it did. Alex with his original Macedonian expeditionary force crossing the Hellespond would have done it. Because with that he crushed the Persian Empire, an area comparable in size and resources to the Indian penninsula and with one great advantage over India: One King. Separate kingdoms are always easier to devide and take out one by one.
But by the battle of Hydapses Alexander faced a serious problem. Many vets were dead from sickness, exhaustion or attrition. His replacements from Macedonia were not what he had inherited from Philip - hard core veteran pros. He was planning to continue with his "asians", Persian youth trained in the Macedonian ways of war who were almost ready by that time (30,000 strong). Of questionable value, if not loyalty. IOW, he had worn out that magnificent war machine that his father gave him. And though he was an exceptional leader, we have to realize that it would have taken nothing less than exactly that war machine to accomplish what he did. With anything less, those unbelievable tasks might never have occurred.
All i'm saying is, i would take the "undefeated part" with a pinch of salt. Since both eastern and western historians tends to exagerrate each achievements.
To call it a "fact", is laughable.
----------------------------------------------- YOU
This message has been edited by cyborgdude2k4 on Jan 30, 2006 6:09 PM This message has been edited by cyborgdude2k4 on Jan 30, 2006 6:08 PM
Cyborg is obviously completely uneducated as evidenced by the way he expresses himself in his posts and his dearth of factual backing.
....now on to more serious discussion...
Yes I know we have gone into tangent of the original topic, but that's ok, it's a developing thread. Keeps it interesting instead of chewing up the same theme.
I agree that Alexanders troops were in a poor physical shape due to the elements at the point of India, and the elements were nto goign to get any friendlier. A campaign to India likely would have led to great losses due to diseases that Alexander's troops had little immunity to and then having to deal with a powerful fioe at the same time. His legacy in an India campaign would probably have been to use Alexander's military genius to get his army out of India Xenophon style. We all know any military genius can get beaten badly when they get overconfident and extend themselves too far.
Personally (and here from a Greek person's point of view), I alwasy beleived Alexander should have established Pella as the capital of his empire because he would be among his own people. From there he could ahve ruled West and East and brought the riches of Persia to build an amazing new capital named after himself. Persia should have been the furthest extent of his eastern holdings. Then again, his generals probably would have ripped his empire apart anyway. Only Ptolemy had some real vision and an enlightened concept for his empire.
The Ottomans used camels to transport their artillery, which was very effective. They also used camels in the northern Balkans which is far from desert conditions.
Camels come in two varieties, The dromedary (Arabian and Indian) and the Bactrian. The Bactrian camel cannot survive for long in a hot climate, but the dromedary does very well even in cold/snowy conditions.
If any of you have been watching the news about the weather in northeastern Pakistan after the quake, you'lll know that winters up there are quite cold, wet and snowy. The terrain is steep, rocky and covered in pine forests, but camels do just fine up there. They use them to transport timber.
As for their use in battle, one point takes us back to our favorite topic of discussion, elephants.
When Nadir Shah Afshar of Persia invaded the Mughal Empire in the 1700's, he saw little fitghing in what is now Afghanistan/Pakistan. Kandahar was already part of teh Persian Empire so when his forces reached Kabul the governor gave up without a fight. While crossing the Khyber pass the Afridi and Shinwari Pashtuns did loot some of his caravans, but theyve been doing that to anyone whos passed through their area.
When he reached Punjab, the governor of Lahore, Zakariya Khan, at first put up some resistance, but then gave up and kissed Nadir Shahs feet for forgiveness.
Finally just a hundred miles outside Delhi he met the main Mughal Force under the Mughal general Nawab Samsam-ud-Daulah. First he cut off the Mughals supply lines and starved them for a week. Finally when the Mughals attacked with their elephants he sent camels with burning naphtha on their backs to run amongst the Mughals elephants. This scared the elephants and sent them runing the opposite dircetion breaking the Mughal ranks.
So maybe Alexander could have used camles with naphtha on their bacls against the Magadha elephants.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
Camels were also used by indigenous Indian powers, particularly in Rajputana.
These fighting units became part of the modern Indian Army. For example the "Ganga Risala" of the Bikaner State:
Quote:The Indian Army traditionally had no camel troops except for a few Animal Transport companies based on camels. The Bikaner State Forces had a very old and efficient camel regiment raised in 1465 and called the Ganga Risala named after Maharaja Ganga Singh.
The Ganga Risala had a fine record of service, having distinguished itself in China in 1900, Somaliland in 1902-4, Egypt in World War One, and the Middle East in World War Two. It was supported by the Bijay Battery also mounted on camels. During World War Two, the Bikaner Camel Corps also distinguished itself in the operations against the Hurs in Sindh.
The 1965 war saw them in action in Bikaner and Jaisalmer sectors foiling Pakistani efforts to infiltrate and capture territory prior to and after the cease fire to use as bargaining chips at the peace talks. A total of 22 squadron actions were fought during the war. Major Jai Singh carried out a raid on the Pakistan post of Ghunewala deep inside their territory The battalion routed Pak forces at Tanot, killing 2 officers and 100 men and regained a lot of Indian territory.
Sadly, the Indian camel battalions were converted into standard infantry battalions in 1975 on the lapse of government sanction. On enquiries being made about the reason for doing so it was found out that unlike the horses and the horsed cavalry the camels and camel corps had no lobby. You could'nt ride or play any game on camels whereas horses of course were used for polo!
Finally just a hundred miles outside Delhi he met the main Mughal Force under the Mughal general Nawab Samsam-ud-Daulah. First he cut off the Mughals supply lines and starved them for a week. Finally when the Mughals attacked with their elephants he sent camels with burning naphtha on their backs to run amongst the Mughals elephants. This scared the elephants and sent them runing the opposite dircetion breaking the Mughal ranks.
So maybe Alexander could have used camles with naphtha on their bacls against the Magadha elephants.
Darada,
thank you for that piece. It seems we westerners have too much of an egocentric view on history, completely ignoring huge chunks of the rich history of the east.
As for Alexander, he studied the animals with awe after his first encounter with them. He developed troops with large axes that were ordered to strike at the enemy elephants' soft spots (belly I believe?) so as not to incapacitate them but to induce pain that would turn to panic. Those troops he placed among the phalangites.
He had some success with this. Some of Porus' beasts panicked and turned to flee away from the threat. Only that was in the opposite direction of Macedonians and towards the Indians. Panicked fleeing Elephants are said to have caused havoc on friendly infantry formations that they passed through.
Just to add to that, the troops were also ordered to aim for the elephants eyes with their speers, this caused havoc for the handlers inducing them to run amoc, trampling freind and foe alike.
Porus was a brave leader we can both agree on that, but he was soundly defeated by Alexander and they did indeed become allies, that is something ppl are overlooking here. Yes the great war machine of the original army from Greece were used up by the time they reached India, Alexanders ability to make friends of former enemies such as the Indians would have allowed him to use the local armies he may have allied with to continue the conquest of India. If of course his army gave him the chance they didnt.
Eight years of continouce war against Indians who were never enemies beforehand would certainly lend logic to the troops unwillingness to fight on.
Remember the war of conquest for the troops was revenge against the Persians, Alexander's was that and more, a whole lot more...world unity under Hellenic rule. And the end of racial hostility that existed between the West and the East, shame he didnt live long enough.
Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)
They mean, “Come and get them!They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie".
"Historical justice, however, obliges me to say that of the opponents that have taken up arms against us, MOST PARTICULARLY THE GREEK SOLDIERS, HAVE FOUGHT WITH THE GREATEST BRAVERY AND CONTEMPT OF DEATH. They only capitulated when further resistance became impossible and therefore useless"
Adolf Hitler
May 4th 1941, Reichstag, Berlin
Greeks are born not manufactured, we do not chose we are chosen, those who understand need no explanation, those who don't, don't matter...
Alexander of Macedonia, Leader of Hellas, and liberater of the Hellenic cities of Asia Minor, he spread the superior culture of Greece to all, resulting in the progression of humanity.
The world's top military historians acknowledge Alexander as the greatest general of all time, but some guys here disagree. They are entitled to their opinions. Alexander left Greece with 35,000 troops, Genghiz Khan left Mongolia with 250,000 troops. Alexander conquered 90% of the KNOWN WORLD whereas Genghiz Khan conquered no more than 25% of the KNOWN WORLD
Both were barbaric and both destroyed great cities and cultures. But Alexander managed to get his own Hollywood film so i'd say Alex
----------------------------------------------------
So did genghis Khan starring John Wayne. Also the film came out before Alexander so i say Genghis LOL
LOL. John Wayne is a much bigger star than the person (I forgot his unfamous name already) who played Alexander the Gay. So Genghis wins by a landslide. LOL
------------------------------------------------- Love is a Big Fat Cuddly Panda
"LOL. John Wayne is a much bigger star than the person (I forgot his unfamous name already) who played Alexander the Gay. So Genghis wins by a landslide."
Since you like to get your historical info from a damn hollywood (USA) film than it just goes to prove what an imbocile you are.
Since you probably dont have the mental capacity or motivation to study the Alexanders character i'll help inform you on some info.
A) Alexander was not gay.
B) you will come back and tell me all ancients were gay and blah blah, fact is in ancient times yes it was accepted and it wasnt like the homo's of today by any means, even so last i saw homo's are accepted in todays society as well which doesnt mean everyone's gay now does it.
C) There is no contempory evidence to suggest Alexander was gay whatsoever.
D) Which means there have been a sh!tload of assumptions, fact is fact.
E) Handy tip china boy, dont beleive everything in a movie.
F) thats the start of the alphabet buddy, if your a good boy i'll teach you more.
Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)
They mean, “Come and get them!They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie".
"Historical justice, however, obliges me to say that of the opponents that have taken up arms against us, MOST PARTICULARLY THE GREEK SOLDIERS, HAVE FOUGHT WITH THE GREATEST BRAVERY AND CONTEMPT OF DEATH. They only capitulated when further resistance became impossible and therefore useless"
Adolf Hitler
May 4th 1941, Reichstag, Berlin
Greeks are born not manufactured, we do not chose we are chosen, those who understand need no explanation, those who don't, don't matter...
Alexander of Macedonia, Leader of Hellas, and liberater of the Hellenic cities of Asia Minor, he spread the superior culture of Greece to all, resulting in the progression of humanity.
Spartan, well said. A new book that's come out in the U.K written by a respectable author, states there is absolutely no proof that Alexander was gay, or even bi-sexual.
Is it just me or did this panda clown just make himself look like a complete dummy.
You should of saved yourself embarresmant and not responded at all, i thought you were a little slow in the knowledge side of things, i have to ignore you now.
"The movie said historicly accurate"-ROFLMAO.
It actually said based on actual events- BASED!
you twit, the last battle depicted in the movie was never fought in a jungle as depicted- one example.
Go away clown.
Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)
They mean, “Come and get them!They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie".
"Historical justice, however, obliges me to say that of the opponents that have taken up arms against us, MOST PARTICULARLY THE GREEK SOLDIERS, HAVE FOUGHT WITH THE GREATEST BRAVERY AND CONTEMPT OF DEATH. They only capitulated when further resistance became impossible and therefore useless"
Adolf Hitler
May 4th 1941, Reichstag, Berlin
Greeks are born not manufactured, we do not chose we are chosen, those who understand need no explanation, those who don't, don't matter...
Alexander of Macedonia, Leader of Hellas, and liberater of the Hellenic cities of Asia Minor, he spread the superior culture of Greece to all, resulting in the progression of humanity.
Well, honestly i cant see what "gayness" has to do in a historical comparison between two military leaders. I quess this is a habit of people who use history as a weapon instead of a tool for knowledge
That is the single most uninformed statement made in this entire thread. Alexander's biggest tactic was not using the same tactic from one battle to another !. That's why the enemy could not figure out what the fk he was doing until it was much too late. It is very difficult or impossible to prepare for someone who uses different tactics ALL THE TIME.
YOU
