Best World Leader.

[@N1k1T0$]

So Sharwood you take all those Alexanders moves that had nothing to do with battles or tactics , but where political in nature but may also other than helping the empire run in a better pace better organisation etc, helped future military conquest and label them as just military moves as well ?


Anyway

I never said he didn't have political motives. I said his only accomplishments were military in nature. Forcing his men to marry Persian women was outright stupid, and contributed to their dislike for him - I don't know why, you'd think they'd enjoy having tang on tap no matter where they were in the empire.

Who cares about his men ? Forcing his Generals to marry Persian women was downright genius. Some may have not enjoyed but not all and it certainly help to solidify his rule among all of the Persians and to make it appear as a natural progression ...

Plus i agree with the below other than his conclusion about Alexander.

However...I don't really see how the other stuff you cited as 'purely political' counts as not military. Instituting a calendar system helps a good deal with military coordination and with political unification as a vehicle for military conquest. Radically overhauling the judicial system decreases internal dissent, allowing for him to spend more time on military conquest. Exploration lets you find easy new enemies to kill and can bring in new trade partners that give you more monies with which to hire more troops to kill people with. You can assign a military motivation to most actions, and given that the amount of spending in governments before, say, the late 19th century or so was vastly tilted towards spending on three things (direct military (recruitment, upkeep, armories, fortresses, etc.), infrastructure, public works...all of which have military applications or possible military motivations)...well, why not label basically every single ruler from the beginning of time concerned with military motives? Not that this has impact on Alexandros' classification as almost wholly a conqueror, but the dichotomy is a bit unfair, methinks.

It's a bit unfair ? It is extremely unfair Dachs Actually is worse than extremely unfair.

Not that this has impact on Alexandros' classification as almost wholly a conqueror

Yes it has. He was the best conqueror that ever lived but he was also an extremely smart political animal and leader as well. One does not make the other false.

 

[Dachs]

Who cares about his men ?

He did.

The army was the main pillar of the State, even more so since Philippos made his 1337 reforms. It was the complaints of his men that induced Alexandros to turn back at the Hyphasis, it was their wishes that induced him to make the famed promise of Opis, and it was the army's wishes that played such an enormous role in the wars of the Diadochi, particularly at the Babylon settlement (what with the confrontation between infantry and cavalry) and at Triparadeisos. In short, pissing off the rankers was not a good plan.

It's a bit unfair ? It is extremely unfair Dachs Actually is worse than extremely unfair.

Don't make this personal.

Yes it has. He was the best conqueror that ever lived but he was also an extremely smart political animal and leader as well. One does not make the other false.

Considering his requests that he made at the end of his life, that is to repatriate his soldiers into klerouchoi (to provide for a more easily mobilizable army, as well as to increase political control in conquered territories), to make an expedition to conquer Arabia, and to prepare an armament against the Qarthadastim (and, if we are to believe the theory, that he wanted one of his best generals in charge of the Empire after he was gone), I think it's safe to say that Alexandros did most of what he did with military motivations. That doesn't mean he wasn't good at the other stuff, too, it's just that it wasn't his main focus? I personally view Alexandros as one of the greatest tacticians in history, to eclipse his other roles, much like most people kind of gloss over Friedrich II's bureaucratic, taxation, industrial, and land reclamation reforms.

That's the nice thing about a subjective statement like best, because you won't get a majority agreement on any one 'best' world leader. Neither of you is going to change the other's mind.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Don't make this personal.

I make it tongue in cheek Dude. You take tongue in cheek personal ?

The army was the main pillar of the State, even more so since Philippos made his 1337 reforms. It was the complaints of his men that induced Alexandros to turn back at the Hyphasis, it was their wishes that induced him to make the famed promise of Opis, and it was the army's wishes that played such an enormous role in the wars of the Diadochi, particularly at the Babylon settlement (what with the confrontation between infantry and cavalry) and at Triparadeisos. In short, pissing off the rankers was not a good plan.

I know this stuff... But in the long picture his actions did not have a big negative affect on his men. Yes he killed a few and yes he was a bit crazy but the negative affect it had on his men and the timing of it , says to me that it didn;t actually affect much.

Considering his requests that he made at the end of his life, that is to repatriate his soldiers into klerouchoi (to provide for a more easily mobilizable army, as well as to increase political control in conquered territories), to make an expedition to conquer Arabia, and to prepare an armament against the Qarthadastim (and, if we are to believe the theory, that he wanted one of his best generals in charge of the Empire after he was gone), I think it's safe to say that Alexandros did most of what he did with military motivations. That doesn't mean he wasn't good at the other stuff, too, it's just that it wasn't his main focus? I personally view Alexandros as one of the greatest tacticians in history, to eclipse his other roles, much like most people kind of gloss over Friedrich II's bureaucratic, taxation, industrial, and land reclamation reforms.

Well i agree. His main focus was conquest , making the new empire work as efficiently as possible , to solidify his power , and to conquer some more. But he was greatly adept at not only conquering in which he was great but as ruling an empire as well.

I just feel that people are just extremely unfair on him when they judge by the most trivial things he did wrong like for example getting drunk once or twice and killing some of his generals.

In fact i remember reading about Aurulianus guy you said which you did declare a great leader who like Alexander won many battles of crucial importance in a short amount of time. I wonder he he was not assasinated what he could accomplish.

That's the nice thing about a subjective statement like best, because you won't get a majority agreement on any one 'best' world leader. Neither of you is going to change the other's mind.

I think in history a few accomplished so much that they belong to be certainly called the best and even share that position with someone else. Isn't the best only one person ? Actually i have no problem if we include two or three persons. For example Genghis Khan and Alexander and Cyrus are considered by me the best.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Caesar

thread over

 

[Dachs]

Caesar

thread over

thread restarted

Which Caesar?

I make it tongue in cheek Dude. You take tongue in cheek personal ?

is tongue in cheek? You is weird, son.

I know this stuff... But in the long picture his actions did not have a big negative affect on his men. Yes he killed a few and yes he was a bit crazy but the negative affect it had on his men and the timing of it , says to me that it didn;t actually affect much.

You're confusing me. First you said 'Who cares about his men', and now you're saying that the stuff that Alexandros did wasn't all that bad for them, really? What viewpoint are you taking, anyway?

I just feel that people are just extremely unfair on him when they judge by the most trivial things he did wrong like for example getting drunk once or twice and killing some of his generals.

Stuff like that still wasn't normal even by the standards of the day. Normal people, when they knock back a few, don't go killing their bodyguards or having their generals executed.

In fact i remember reading about Aurulianus guy you said which you did declare a great leader who like Alexander won many battles of crucial importance in a short amount of time. I wonder he he was not assasinated what he could accomplish.

He was assassinated. A forged letter made by his secretary, who expected harsh punishment for a clerical error, induced a cabal of generals to form against him and murder him on his way to the East.

 

[Taras Bulba]

thread restarted

Which Caesar?

the REAL Caesar, Julius Caesar

 

[Sharwood]

Meh.

However...I don't really see how the other stuff you cited as 'purely political' counts as not military. Instituting a calendar system helps a good deal with military coordination and with political unification as a vehicle for military conquest. Radically overhauling the judicial system decreases internal dissent, allowing for him to spend more time on military conquest. Exploration lets you find easy new enemies to kill and can bring in new trade partners that give you more monies with which to hire more troops to kill people with. You can assign a military motivation to most actions, and given that the amount of spending in governments before, say, the late 19th century or so was vastly tilted towards spending on three things (direct military (recruitment, upkeep, armories, fortresses, etc.), infrastructure, public works...all of which have military applications or possible military motivations)...well, why not label basically every single ruler from the beginning of time concerned with military motives? Not that this has impact on Alexandros' classification as almost wholly a conqueror, but the dichotomy is a bit unfair, methinks.

Yes, you can use calendar reform and the like in a military context. My point was that everything Alexander did was with a military purpose in mind. If he had of reformed the calendar in Greece, it wouldn't really have helped secure his position. In fact, it probably would have weakened it, as it likely would have angered the populace, who were already less than pleased with Macedonian rule. So such a move on his part would have served no military purpose. Hence, he didn't do it. Everything Alexander did, besides nailing slaveboys, was with a military purpose in mind.

I'll continue using calendar reform as an example. Was the Gregorian Calendar organised with a military purpose in mind? No. It was religious in nature. The Julian Calendar, on the other hand... By reforming the calendar, Caesar helped 'prove' to the people that he would not abuse his power, as many of his predecessors had. Therefore, he increased their belief in the desirability of his leadership. As such, an apparently non-military move, reforming the calendar, was in essence quite militant, as well as political and religious.

Alexander focused on military matters only, to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. That was the point I was making when I listed his actions as military, and judicial and calendar reform as "purely political." Probably should have clarified that in the original post.

 

[Sharwood]

So Sharwood you take all those Alexanders moves that had nothing to do with battles or tactics , but where political in nature but may also other than helping the empire run in a better pace better organisation etc, helped future military conquest and label them as just military moves as well ?

See my previous post for a clarification on this point.

Anyway

Who cares about his men ? Forcing his Generals to marry Persian women was downright genius. Some may have not enjoyed but not all and it certainly help to solidify his rule among all of the Persians and to make it appear as a natural progression ...

Ummm... A wise general and ruler cares a great deal about his men. Pissing off the rank and file is a good way to get oneself assassinated. As is pissing off the generals, which Alexander found out, what with being (allegedly) poisoned and all. If his generals and men wanted to marry Persian women, he should have let them, even encouraged it. But Alexander pretty much forced them to. People have never enjoyed being forced to marry, especially when Greek propaganda had done its best to turn the Persian Wars into a race war, despite the notable fact that it wasn't.

Yes it has. He was the best conqueror that ever lived but he was also an extremely smart political animal and leader as well. One does not make the other false.

Alexander was an extremely foolish political animal. That doesn't detract from his military brilliance. The man was damn near justified in believing himself a god. But encouraging such worship, while smart in Persian and Egyptian territory, where rulers had been seen as gods incarnate for millenia, was essentially suicidal among Greeks. it was idiotic on Alexander's part, as were the forced marriages, the neverending war - eventually soldiers like to settle down - the execution of one of his own generals for a plot he had no part in, etc.

Alexander was a brilliant strategist and tactician, but not a good leader of men, therefore, he wasn't even a good general, let alone ruler. Certainly not a "smart political animal."

 

[@N1k1T0$]

You're confusing me. First you said 'Who cares about his men', and now you're saying that the stuff that Alexandros did wasn't all that bad for them, really? What viewpoint are you taking, anyway?

There is nothing confusing. I am taking both viewpoints. They can coexist in peace. I don't care about the fact that he killed some inoccents due to insanity , but i also feel it has not have a noticable negative affect. (not important).

In fact if you look closely you will note it is the same viewpoint.

Stuff like that still wasn't normal even by the standards of the day. Normal people, when they knock back a few, don't go killing their bodyguards or having their generals executed.

I am not saying that is normal. I am aware how his actions are judged. I just don't care about that particular action because i say la la la i don't care if he was an immoral piece of poop , that is not how i judge him and i am dissapointed when people confuse morality with ability.

He was assassinated. A forged letter made by his secretary, who expected harsh punishment for a clerical error, induced a cabal of generals to form against him and murder him on his way to the East.

But i was asking what if he was NOT assassinated ? Are you blind ? How could you not have seen the If i forgot to add in that sentence ? Oh wait... Oupsss Forgot that sentence...

Ummm... A wise general and ruler cares a great deal about his men. Pissing off the rank and file is a good way to get oneself assassinated. As is pissing off the generals, which Alexander found out, what with being (allegedly) poisoned and all. If his generals and men wanted to marry Persian women, he should have let them, even encouraged it. But Alexander pretty much forced them to. People have never enjoyed being forced to marry, especially when Greek propaganda had done its best to turn the Persian Wars into a race war, despite the notable fact that it wasn't.

Alexander was the leader of the Persians along with the Greeks. His decision that they would marry Perisians had only positive effects. You judging it as wrong because in your eyes it pissed off people makes me laugh... It had a more positive effect people than negative. By doing so he may have pissed less people than if he had not seeing as he was the emperor of the Persian , Egyptian ,Indian , Greek empire and all.

I am sorry but that is in my eyes dishonest and not valid criticism.

Alexander was an extremely foolish political animal.

No he was an extremely intelligent political animal and you have provided no prove against this.

. That doesn't detract from his military brilliance. The man was damn near justified in believing himself a god. But encouraging such worship, while smart in Persian and Egyptian territory, where rulers had been seen as gods incarnate for millenia, was essentially suicidal among Greeks.

No it was not suicidal at not. And you keep forgetting the part of him wanting to Hellenize his empire but to do so he has to accept foreign customs first. A necessarry move that is actually certainly not suicidal among Greeks. It is not like they where not familiar with Egyptian Gods. And who cares if he states to the Egyptians that he is related to their Gods so he gains legitimancy ? All the leaders did so especially the Romans claiming to be high priests of several Gods. Again invalid criticism.

it was idiotic on Alexander's part, as were the forced marriages,

Not doing those things would be the idiotic move for the reasons i have explained. And yes it would piss a lot more people if he had not done them and affected the cohesion of his empire to a great extend.

the neverending war

Well this may be a sign of the guy caring more of his vanity than being a leader. So i will give you that. In fact i admit that he certainly cared more for him self than for anyone. He was the leader of the empire and the leader of his vanity and ambition but a damn good leader at that.

the execution of one of his own generals for a plot he had no part in, etc.

That was a bad move but the countless executions of generals and people who where moving against his interests where positive.

Alexander was a brilliant strategist and tactician, but not a good leader of men, therefore, he wasn't even a good general, let alone ruler. Certainly not a "smart political animal."

Alexander was a brilliant politican animal a brilliant strategist and tactician and a brilliant ruler of men when he wanted to , but he did saw him beyond men , and did act on occasions against their interest and in favor of his ambition. But that is Alexander. If he had not been so i don't see him archieving what he did.

The fact that he sometimes chose to sacrifice others for his goals or simply for his vanity does not mean that he could not lead them , alive , in a very competent fashion. In fact he did we have plenty examples of him doing so.

So yes i agree with you that he was first and foremost a leader , a follower of his own ambition. In the pursuit of that ambition he was also able to be great leader to the men and women bellow him.

 

[West 36]

the REAL Caesar, Julius Caesar

Meh. Nah.

I can't decide really. Bismarck was pretty good, but in that dick, realpolitik way.

 

[Sharwood]

Alexander was the leader of the Persians along with the Greeks. His decision that they would marry Perisians had only positive effects. You judging it as wrong because in your eyes it pissed off people makes me laugh... It had a more positive effect people than negative. By doing so he may have pissed less people than if he had not seeing as he was the emperor of the Persian , Egyptian ,Indian , Greek empire and all.

No. Alexander was the conqueror of the Persians. He had taken the place of the leader, and for the most part, they accepted him. But he was still the leader of a foreign occupation force. His army was predominantly Greek. Pissing off one's army, especially when one is a despot, and one who gained power through war to begin with... Not a good idea. In fact, a very bad idea.

Forced marriage is never a good idea. Especially if the party being forced is the one with the weapons. They're somewhat liable to turn on the one forcing them into the marriage. These forced marriages were a contributing factor to Alexander's eventual assassination. One of many, which seems to indicate he wasn't too politically savvy. Skilful politicians tend to avoid getting assassinated. Now Stalin, he was a brilliant politician.

I am sorry but that is in my eyes dishonest and not valid criticism.

Then I suggest you see an optometrist, because your eyes are clearly deficient. It is more than valid, it's accurate.

No he was an extremely intelligent political animal and you have provided no prove against this.

I've provided reams of proof. You've provided none for your point. In fact, you've made my point for me several times.

No it was not suicidal at not. And you keep forgetting the part of him wanting to Hellenize his empire but to do so he has to accept foreign customs first. A necessarry move that is actually certainly not suicidal among Greeks. It is not like they where not familiar with Egyptian Gods. And who cares if he states to the Egyptians that he is related to their Gods so he gains legitimancy ? All the leaders did so especially the Romans claiming to be high priests of several Gods. Again invalid criticism.

So, ordering your men to worship you as a god isn't likely to offend them? Somewhat, violently? I'll keep that in mind next time I lead a military campaign deep into foreign territory.

Alexander may have wanted to Hellenise the empire. He also may very well have wanted to 'Orientalise' Greece. We simply don't know. But his actions are certainly more in favour of the 'Oriental' viewpoint.

Of course Greeks were familiar with Egyptian gods. However, they were somewhat less familiar with having their king claim to be one of those gods, and requesting they worship him as such. There is absolutely nothing wrong with him portraying a god, to the Egyptians and Persians. They were familiar with the process of King-deification. The Greeks weren't, and they didn't like it one bit.

Not doing those things would be the idiotic move for the reasons i have explained. And yes it would piss a lot more people if he had not done them and affected the cohesion of his empire to a great extend.

Because his empire was so incredibly cohesive to begin with? You'll note the Persians had few troubles with Empire cohesiveness, as did the Romans later on. Most of the trouble came from governors getting greedy, not public uprisings. And why was that? Because they did nothing to upset either the conquered peoples - allowing them to retain their beliefs and customs, except where it would interfere with the empire, such as with Christians - and they also kept their own people happy! This is a no-brainer. Who's happiness is more important? The conquered peoples? Or the rather sizeable army which conquered them?

Well this may be a sign of the guy caring more of his vanity than being a leader. So i will give you that. In fact i admit that he certainly cared more for him self than for anyone. He was the leader of the empire and the leader of his vanity and ambition but a damn good leader at that.

He was a damn good conqueror. Not much good at anything else. Still, not the first, nor last, case of a leader's hubris and vanity bringing him down.

That was a bad move but the countless executions of generals and people who where moving against his interests where positive.

If he hadn't of been so foolish, he wouldn't have needed to execute so many damn people to begin with. Executing opponents is a wise move for a leader. But executing the innocent seldom is, especially pre-20th Century, when such things as secret police and fast communications made both stamping out dissent and instilling fear in the populace easier.

Alexander was a brilliant politican animal a brilliant strategist and tactician and a brilliant ruler of men when he wanted to , but he did saw him beyond men , and did act on occasions against their interest and in favor of his ambition. But that is Alexander. If he had not been so i don't see him archieving what he did.

Brilliant political animals don't get assassinated by their own generals, not when things are actually going well for them. Alexander ruled the largest empire in the history of the world at that point. It's not like the British had landed at Normandy and German cities were being bombed. Brilliant rulers of men don't seemingly go out of their way to infuriate the men under their command. Acting in favour of one's own ambition is fine. But not at one's own expense, which Alexander did.

The fact that he sometimes chose to sacrifice others for his goals or simply for his vanity does not mean that he could not lead them , alive , in a very competent fashion. In fact he did we have plenty examples of him doing so.

Sacrifice for vanity does not a leader make. Leaders sacrifice people for practical purposes, and do it in such a way that their people go to their deaths with a smile on their face, or their followers begin to think that maybe this leader isn't much of a leader after all. We have examples of Alexander winning battles and wars, and not anything else particularly well, or even ably.

So yes i agree with you that he was first and foremost a leader , a follower of his own ambition. In the pursuit of that ambition he was also able to be great leader to the men and women bellow him.

You apparently don't agree with me. Alexander was first and foremost a conqueror, a brilliant strategist and tactician. He was a bad general, worse leader, and much worse man. History finds no greater example of pissing away one's own brilliance through arrogance and stupidity than Alexander the "Great."

 

[Dachs]

These forced marriages were a contributing factor to Alexander's eventual assassination.

Uh. The assassination theory rests with Kassandros, not with the forced marriages. It also is widely discredited.

You'll note the Persians had few troubles with Empire cohesiveness, as did the Romans later on. Most of the trouble came from governors getting greedy, not public uprisings.

Wait, the Persians and Romans didn't have issues with Empire cohesiveness? What about the repeated Egyptian revolts? The Gallic Empire? Also, please cite examples of conquered peoples rising up against the Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The most genocidal and evil one.

Humans and humankind in general suck, and the leader who caused as much destroying and killing of humans as possible, deserves to be called the "best", IMO.

 

[Sharwood]

Uh. The assassination theory rests with Kassandros, not with the forced marriages. It also is widely discredited.

Wait, the Persians and Romans didn't have issues with Empire cohesiveness? What about the repeated Egyptian revolts? The Gallic Empire? Also, please cite examples of conquered peoples rising up against the Arche Seleukeia and Ptolemaioi.

Which is why I said alleged when I first mentioned poisoning. My point was that if he was assassinated, pissing off his primary support base would most definitely be a contributing factor. In fact, weren't there several plots to either mutiny or assassinate Alexander, or both, before his death?

Egypt was different enough culturally from Persia - and had a history of emnity to Persia - so they had problems there. But for the most part, Persian difficulties came from Persian Satraps getting uppity, not revolt from beneath.

I'm unfamiliar with the term Gallic Empire. But again, once the initial conquest was made, and the initial revolt quashed, Rome had little trouble with conquered peoples. It was again, primarily Proconsuls and military leaders deciding they wanted a bigger slice.

You've got a real hard on for the Arche Seleukeia, don't you? Why should I cite examples of revolts against them? I'm not saying there were any. You want me to mention every single empire in history that had few problems caused by popular uprisings? Kind of defeats the purpose of simply using examples, doesn't it?

 

[Dachs]

You realize that I'm really not coming down all that hard on either side, hmm?

Which is why I said alleged when I first mentioned poisoning. My point was that if he was assassinated, pissing off his primary support base would most definitely be a contributing factor. In fact, weren't there several plots to either mutiny or assassinate Alexander, or both, before his death?

There were many of these plots, true enough. The one that succeeded, if it did in fact succeed, though, was instigated by a dude whose homicidal motives extended to slaughtering the entire family of the Argeades. Not really mutiny-based, I don't think. Kassandros: if there was a Bad Guy in the wars of the Diadochi... Soldier plots to mutiny were in general IMHO quite low after the promises made at Opis anyway.

Egypt was different enough culturally from Persia - and had a history of emnity to Persia - so they had problems there.

Egypt had a history of enmity to Persia? First major contact was the Achaemenid conquest by Kambujia, and despite fun Persian policies like adopting the pharaohship, they were plagued by Egyptian revolts up to the conquest of Alexandros itself.

But for the most part, Persian difficulties came from Persian Satraps getting uppity, not revolt from beneath.

That is what most troubles in the Hellenistic empires came from, too.

I'm unfamiliar with the term Gallic Empire. But again, once the initial conquest was made, and the initial revolt quashed, Rome had little trouble with conquered peoples. It was again, primarily Proconsuls and military leaders deciding they wanted a bigger slice.

The Gallic Empire was a polity that broke away from Rome during the time of the Crisis of the Third Century. Comprising Gallia, Hispania, and Britannia, it seceded from the Empire nominally to provide for its own defense. It can be seen in part as a usual governor-gets-uppity bit but also in large part as a Celtic reaction to Roman occupation and Romanization efforts (in more ways than one; Roman cultural adoption was largely maintained, but there were some expressions of discontentment with the eclipsing of the Celts as well...). Anyway, it was good stuff.

You've got a real hard on for the Arche Seleukeia, don't you? Why should I cite examples of revolts against them? I'm not saying there were any. You want me to mention every single empire in history that had few problems caused by popular uprisings? Kind of defeats the purpose of simply using examples, doesn't it?

I'm saying, Alexandros' policy, as continued by his Successors, didn't induce the People to rise up in mass revolt. Seems like it wasn't that bad of a series of moves to institute the klerouchoi and katoikiai. The Pahlavan did the same thing, in a way, with their own levies aimed at raising the most zradha the fustest. As for the alleged hard on, yeah, I tend to refer more to the periods of history that I know about. Funny how that works.

 

[Japanrocks12]

The Empress Wu. Had an ingenious solution to the question of tribute, which also aided her in getting laid.

 

[Sharwood]

You realize that I'm really not coming down all that hard on either side, hmm?

You're either with me or against me Dach. Okay, that concludes today's political lesson from the Book of Bush.

There were many of these plots, true enough. The one that succeeded, if it did in fact succeed, though, was instigated by a dude whose homicidal motives extended to slaughtering the entire family of the Argeades. Not really mutiny-based, I don't think. Kassandros: if there was a Bad Guy in the wars of the Diadochi... Soldier plots to mutiny were in general IMHO quite low after the promises made at Opis anyway.

You're obviously more familiar with the plot than I am, so I will bow to your indisputable wisdom. I was under the assumption it was more than just Cassander - I refuse to use your arcane, correct terminology - involved in the poisoning.

Egypt had a history of enmity to Persia? First major contact was the Achaemenid conquest by Kambujia, and despite fun Persian policies like adopting the pharaohship, they were plagued by Egyptian revolts up to the conquest of Alexandros itself.

They were the only two superpowers in the region, and Persia was trying to conquer them pretty much from day one. How would Russia take being conquered by the US, no matter how 'Russian' the US made themselves seem? There was contact before the successful conquest, it was just intermittent. The Jews weren't transported back to Israel out of the kindness of the Archaemenid hearts, they were put there as a buffer, likely so that Egypt wouldn't even see an attack coming.

That is what most troubles in the Hellenistic empires came from, too.

After Alexander caved at Opis, and died, yeah. If things had of continued the way they were going, he'd have had a major military uprising on his hands. I used Persia and Rome to illustrate my point that you must keep both the populace and the military happy, although the military is the most important of the two, especially if one is actually in occupied territory at the time. I just said "public" instead of "military" rising, which was a mistake.

The Gallic Empire was a polity that broke away from Rome during the time of the Crisis of the Third Century. Comprising Gallia, Hispania, and Britannia, it seceded from the Empire nominally to provide for its own defense. It can be seen in part as a usual governor-gets-uppity bit but also in large part as a Celtic reaction to Roman occupation and Romanization efforts (in more ways than one; Roman cultural adoption was largely maintained, but there were some expressions of discontentment with the eclipsing of the Celts as well...). Anyway, it was good stuff.

Awesome, I believe I may have heard of that in passing a while back, but no details. I'll have to look it up. And that basically proves my point for me anyway, annoying the locals made them revolt. Thus, annoying locals=bad idea.

I'm saying, Alexandros' policy, as continued by his Successors, didn't induce the People to rise up in mass revolt. Seems like it wasn't that bad of a series of moves to institute the klerouchoi and katoikiai. The Pahlavan did the same thing, in a way, with their own levies aimed at raising the most zradha the fustest. As for the alleged hard on, yeah, I tend to refer more to the periods of history that I know about. Funny how that works.

Again, my fault for saying "public" instead of "military." Regarding the military, Roman history is littered with Emperors that annoyed them and were punished for it, what with the killing and replacement by generals and all. By the time of Alexander's death, his troops were being better taken care of, they were now free to settle down - after all, no-one was sending them to India or planning a conquest of Carthage anymore - and the generals were now quite happy to fight over the spoils, rather than chomping at the bit to get rid of this moron who wanted them to worship him.

Oh, and it's not "alleged" Dachs, you sound like you want to make out with Antiochus. That's a little too familiar, if you know what I mean.

 

[philippe]

I'd say Karel Martel would make for a great leader, a bastard son who had to knock for his way to power, defeated the Frisians, saxons (well not definitifely), a brilliant general who formed the the way for european heavy cavalry, and of course only known to the great public for the battle at Poitiers that is vastly overrated, but still, at least he passed the line to a competent succesor, and was smart enough to realise he had to be literate (and thus send Pippijn III to a monastary), and Pippijn III de korte consilidated the reich and worked well together with the pope against the longobards.

of course his grandson charlemagne is the most known one, but i'd say he is a tad too overrated, he overstretched his empire, and Lodewijk de Vrome wasn't such a bad king, but he just wasn't as ruthless.

what happened to him and the struggle with his sons, is a pure tragedy.

 

[Dachs]

You're either with me or against me Dach. Okay, that concludes today's political lesson from the Book of Bush.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

You're obviously more familiar with the plot than I am, so I will bow to your indisputable wisdom. I was under the assumption it was more than just Cassander - I refuse to use your arcane, correct terminology - involved in the poisoning.

There's a somewhat outrageous theory out there that Chandragupta Maurya helped create a cabal to aid ma boy Kassandros, but there's really nothing backing it up. I think the main problem behind any poisoning theory is that poisoning really isn't the way the Maks roll. Philippos II was murdered by the sword, as were the other Argeades that that we know Kassandros killed. Poisoning's more of an Eastern thing. Too, the time between the poison's administration (if it were, again, a poison) and the death of Alexandros were too great for most poisons that the Maks knew about or had access too.

As for the 'correct' terminology - well, I did say this.

They were the only two superpowers in the region, and Persia was trying to conquer them pretty much from day one. How would Russia take being conquered by the US, no matter how 'Russian' the US made themselves seem? There was contact before the successful conquest, it was just intermittent. The Jews weren't transported back to Israel out of the kindness of the Archaemenid hearts, they were put there as a buffer, likely so that Egypt wouldn't even see an attack coming.

The time between the Achaemenid conquest of Lydia and Babylon and the beginning of the invasion of Egypt was fifteen to twenty years, and a significant chunk of that was taken up in Achaemenid attempts to crush a revolt. I don't think two decades is a history of enmity, especially when they'd worked together against both the Neo-Chaldeans and the Assyrians.

Again, my fault for saying "public" instead of "military." Regarding the military, Roman history is littered with Emperors that annoyed them and were punished for it, what with the killing and replacement by generals and all. By the time of Alexander's death, his troops were being better taken care of, they were now free to settle down - after all, no-one was sending them to India or planning a conquest of Carthage anymore - and the generals were now quite happy to fight over the spoils, rather than chomping at the bit to get rid of this moron who wanted them to worship him.

Yeah, I was trying to make the point that the plan of military settlement didn't induce popular native revolts all that much, and basically agree with you on the pissing off soldiers part.

Oh, and it's not "alleged" Dachs,

Victory is mine.

you sound like you want to make out with Antiochus. That's a little too familiar, if you know what I mean.

Nah. Fetishes for azn chicks are more my thing.

I'd say Karel Martel would make for a great leader, a bastard son who had to knock for his way to power, defeated the Frisians, saxons (well not definitifely), a brilliant general who formed the the way for european heavy cavalry, and of course only known to the great public for the battle at Poitiers that is vastly overrated, but still, at least he passed the line to a competent succesor, and was smart enough to realise he had to be literate (and thus send Pippijn III to a monastary), and Pippijn III de korte consilidated the reich and worked well together with the pope against the longobards.

I think that all of that is overshadowed by the fact that his epithet was the Hammer.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Knowing you have the potential to become a Sith i hope you are not manipulated by the Dark Force

Sharwood

. Join us , the Jedi , the only ones who are absolutely correct. Else you are against us.

Now Write ten times that Alexander is the best especially compared to Antiochus. As you have not answered to my post yet i am confident that you are with us. You have resisted the dark force.