NationStates Jolt Archive

The question is simple, although the conversation is bound not to be:

What do you think of Alexander the Great? (I won't bother asking anyone to keep the conversation non-movie related, but I would like to say that the question isn't meant to be. I mean Alexander the Great, the very real person who was alive once, not the movie character.)

He never actually existed. It's all propaganda.

A raging drunk who got lucky in battle. Too stupid to get an heir or to unite his kingdom.

He never actually existed. It's all propaganda.

Flamebait+Trolling.
Do you ever CONTRIBUTE anything?

-----------

Anywho, A The G was good at altering his battle techniques at the last moment, but shit at moving his troops from A to B.

A raging drunk who got lucky in battle. Too stupid to get an heir or to unite his kingdom.
*Eyes twitch uncontrollably*

Lucky?! Lucky?! The man's innovations to infantry, and combined infantry/cavalry tactics were nearly as important as those at Delium in shaping modern tactics! Lucky?!

Uniting a Kingdom takes time, and how can you realistically say his was less united than others at the time? Yes he died before he had an heir, but the man had bloody well conquered most of the then known world.

Technically, he did have an heir... but that heir just happened to get murdered at a young age. You can hardly count that as a failure of Alexander's.

Anywho, A The G was good at altering his battle techniques at the last moment, but shit at moving his troops from A to B.

Please elaborate...

A raging drunk who got lucky in battle. Too stupid to get an heir or to unite his kingdom.

I'm sure he would have in good time. I don't htink he planned to die at 32. If you can tell me that you plan to have everything in your life accomplished and plan to die by 32, then you can criticize him for not gettin an heir.

What a coincedence! We were just talking about Alexander in my my history class. And I also happen to have the notes I took right next to me!

You don't really conquer almost all the known world by "luck." Alexander had some good strategies and tactics. Take for example, Galgamaya (not spelled right) He was outnumbered 3-1, and yet he still won.

And crazy conspiracy guy, you can claim everything is made up. But that don't make it true.

Also, I think he was totally awesome. In part becuase he has the same name as me. But I would probably think that anyway because he was awesome.

Might I add that his phalanx attacking strategy is still useful today? In Halo, by taking a ghost and getting behind the turret of a tank, you can easily kill the tank driver without getting hit. Now that's history at work!

he didnt have an heir bc he was a homo. Further proof that the best warriors are gay.

He DID have an heir. Roxane was pregnant when he died.

He had a son. After his Alexander's death his son was used as a political pawn and murdered at an early age. And Alexander was bisexual. All the ancient greeks were.

Please elaborate...

no worries mate,

Well, I studied the subject 5 years ago so my facts aren’t at the front of my brain...
But did he, or did he not win spectacular military battles? Answer: Yes.
He has been praised as a brilliant Battle tactician; many believe it was his flexible strategies, because he was good at altering his battle techniques at the last moment


Now, he did conquer afar this is true, but the amount of times he had to use troops from conquered nation states :wink: because his troops had plain old dropped dead traipsing from the last victory, to the new battle was why his global movement was not one of his strong points.

Now, he did conquer afar this is true, but the amount of times he had to use troops from conquered nation states :wink: because his troops had plain old dropped dead traipsing from the last victory, to the new battle was why his global movement was not one of his strong points.
Don't forget how he led his troops through the desert for a year after he was done conquering.

no worries mate,

Well, I studied the subject 5 years ago so my facts aren’t at the front of my brain...
But did he, or did he not win spectacular military battles? Answer: Yes.
He has been praised as a brilliant Battle tactician; many believe it was his flexible strategies, because he was good at altering his battle techniques at the last moment


Now, he did conquer afar this is true, but the amount of times he had to use troops from conquered nation states :wink: because his troops had plain old dropped dead traipsing from the last victory, to the new battle was why his global movement was not one of his strong points.

Well, you can't really blame him for that though... crossing deserts and such is pretty hazardous.

Well, you can't really blame him for that though... crossing deserts and such is pretty hazardous.

especially when you are a drunk and start talking to snakes, and take a 3 month detour.

He's an ass pounding drunk barbarian.

Yea, he was a good fighting man, but so what?

He got drunk all the time, he destoryed the huge librarys at Persepolis, not the mention PERSEPOLIS itself. He burned the entire fucking city down.

I mean, yea he was sort of ok when he tried uniting Persia and Greece, creating Helenistic culture, but he didn't know when to just stop.

But ironically, Macedonians are ethnic descendants of Persians

He's an ass pounding drunk barbarian.

Yea, he was a good fighting man, but so what?

He got drunk all the time, he destoryed the huge librarys at Persepolis, not the mention PERSEPOLIS itself. He burned the entire fucking city down.

I mean, yea he was sort of ok when he tried uniting Persia and Greece, creating Helenistic culture, but he didn't know when to just stop.

But ironically, Macedonians are ethnic descendants of Persians


"Barbarian" is actually a Greek word for someone who doesn't speak Greek... which, in case you didn't know, Alexander did.

He did get drunk a lot, which isn't something I would even begin to defend. But that's not because of some moral opinion that he shouldn't, as because I care about him. I don't see why those who don't like him really view that as a bad thing. It could very easily be what killed him, couldn't it?

It's "libraries", not "librarys". And keep in mind, he burned ONE CITY. Not that burning cities is okay as long as you don't burn many, but it wasn't as if he was bent on destruction. Had he been, I can guarantee he would have burnt a lot more cities. He made a mistake, and he regretted it.

First off - IIRC he was outnumbered 22-1 and his enemy had over ONE MILLION MEN.
Second - he had an heir. Died before he was 10. Opps.
Was bi - but that was possibly due to the culture back then.
He was a military genius though - his use of cavalry was unrivaled until maybe 700 years later, when the stirrup was invented and put to use. Rome succeeded with infantry.

Honestly, I would be amazed at a battle between Alexander and Gaius Marius or Julius Ceasar, using their armies, primarily because they were each army was at the pinnicle of its abilities and possible equipmen, and the fact that neither was ever defeated in battle.

But honestly, I respect him, primarily becuase he managed to concoquer the world practically, and in much less time than Rome. He crushed Persia, and was the last to do so until Gengis Khan.

Gifted tactician, bad with strategy. His empire, which could have been greater than that of Rome, fell apart because he failed to name an heir. Too busy off having fun conquering people.

Naming an heir isn't all it's cracked up to be. If he had named an heir that his men wouldn't accept, they... well, wouldn't have accepted him. His empire didn't fall because he didn't name an heir, his empire fell because he died.

Generals and the leaders of nations ever since have not tried to emulate Alexander the Great because he was some half-baked nut. This was one of the most cultured military leaders in our History. Not too many of the kids can say that oh by the way I was home schooled by Aristotle amongst others. This was a young man who fought in his first battle at age 16 (might have been 15) and was in the part of the action where his leadership decided the day. He was half Macedonian and half Greek. He hunted lions with a spear in his spare time (almost got him killed once); met with some of the greatest minds and spiritual leaders of his time; learned everything he could from travelers; and his impact is felt today in many cultures (he even has a chapter in the Quaran dedicated to him!).

The talk about him being gay is the same kind of bad history that has people believing that Caligula made his horse a senator. A Greek orator at the time used to slur Alexander as being Gay. This was done in much the same way that kids do today in the schoolyards. It was the public slander of the day by Greek Orators when they had very little to work with. So on the basis of one Greek speaker and a few bad historians who have decided that this was cannon, we have a lot of the World believing that Al was obviously Gay. Given that Al had nothing to gain by marrying Roxanne (among the other Princess he spent his time with) one would think that the opposite was probably closer to the truth of the matter.

Once he became the Macedonian leader he had to first put down all of the rebellions of the same type of fiery tribes he ruled, before consolidating Greece. Then he smokes the Persians in a series of absolute victories, consolidated his new Empire and then went on to defeat the King of India. He returned to get his forces ready for a campaign into Western Europe but was poisoned all before the age of 32. He used complex algebra to calculate his logistics and sent home numerous botanical samples home to Aristotle.

His master strategy of defeating the dominant Persian fleet by taking out their ports in a land campaign was smart. He used his fleet as a logistics tool and kept it from the fighting, despite the wishes of the leader of his navy. In fact the fact that Alexander didn’t make use of the Navy much in his exploits led to the ruin of both Napoleon and Hitler who tried to emulate him but failed to understand that Alexander would have used a bit more naval focus when dealing with England. Because Alexander never dealt with an island naval power, he left no example of how a conquerer needed to think this through. Caesar left the same problem because his naval victory against the Britons was won by turning the naval battle into a land one by stuffing his ships with legions.

Generals and the leaders of nations ever since have not tried to emulate Alexander the Great because he was some half-baked nut. This was one of the most cultured military leaders in our History. Not too many of the kids can say that oh by the way I was home schooled by Aristotle amongst others. This was a young man who fought in his first battle at age 16 (might have been 15) and was in the part of the action where his leadership decided the day. He was half Macedonian and half Greek. He hunted lions with a spear in his spare time (almost got him killed once); met with some of the greatest minds and spiritual leaders of his time; learned everything he could from travelers; and his impact is felt today in many cultures (he even has a chapter in the Quaran dedicated to him!).

The talk about him being gay is the same kind of bad history that has people believing that Caligula made his horse a senator. A Greek orator at the time used to slur Alexander as being Gay. This was done in much the same way that kids do today in the schoolyards. It was the public slander of the day by Greek Orators when they had very little to work with. So on the basis of one Greek speaker and a few bad historians who have decided that this was cannon, we have a lot of the World believing that Al was obviously Gay. Given that Al had nothing to gain by marrying Roxanne (among the other Princess he spent his time with) one would think that the opposite was probably closer to the truth of the matter.

Once he became the Macedonian leader he had to first put down all of the rebellions of the same type of fiery tribes he ruled, before consolidating Greece. Then he smokes the Persians in a series of absolute victories, consolidated his new Empire and then went on to defeat the King of India. He returned to get his forces ready for a campaign into Western Europe but was poisoned all before the age of 32. He used complex algebra to calculate his logistics and sent home numerous botanical samples home to Aristotle.

His master strategy of defeating the dominant Persian fleet by taking out their ports in a land campaign was smart. He used his fleet as a logistics tool and kept it from the fighting, despite the wishes of the leader of his navy. In fact the fact that Alexander didn’t make use of the Navy much in his exploits led to the ruin of both Napoleon and Hitler who tried to emulate him but failed to understand that Alexander would have used a bit more naval focus when dealing with England. Because Alexander never dealt with an island naval power, he left no example of how a conquerer needed to think this through. Caesar left the same problem because his naval victory against the Britons was won by turning the naval battle into a land one by stuffing his ships with legions.

I'm sorry, but I believe your facts are a little off... I'm interested in knowing where you got them from. What are your sources?

Who would win: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, or Genghis Khan?

Who would win: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, or Genghis Khan?

Depends. Are they all fielding armies of exact same strength?

he didnt have an heir bc he was a homo. Further proof that the best warriors are gay.

Read a history book. Alexander had heirs to the throne but they were all ether put out of power by the people which they controlled or poisoned by someone who wished to take their power from them.

I think he's fascinating, though I'm rather glad he doesn't exist today. He may be an interesting subject for study, but I'd rather not have him conquering myu country...

As for the movie, it was badly written, badly acted shit, and full of the typical double-standards (i.e., it's cool if the opposite-sex partners are all over each other, butt naked, but god forbid the same-sex ones do anything less innocent than hugging! :o )

Read a history book. Alexander had heirs to the throne but they were all ether put out of power by the people which they controlled or poisoned by someone who wished to take their power from them.

I think it would be appropriate to say that a big reason Alexander's empire fell apart is because he was never able to cultivate an heir. He had heirs borne, but he was never able to groom one to take over his empire after his death, since he died prematurely. There is a huge difference between having heirs sired and having an heir.

He had a son. After his Alexander's death his son was used as a political pawn and murdered at an early age. And Alexander was bisexual. All the ancient greeks were.

Correct but sorry, what evidence do you have for all greeks being Bi?

Who would win: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, or Genghis Khan?

Genghis Khan! Mounted archers against infantry formations.....

Then again Alexander did annialate a horse people(just blanked on their name) in what is now Afghanistan.

Correct but sorry, what evidence do you have for all greeks being Bi?

It was the way their culture was... I'm sure there were still some people who were completely gay or completely straight, but basically is someone was even mildly bisexual they just went ahead with it. At least the men... I'm not sure about the women.

*on top this time Cog. No deat this.*

I just had a debate similar to this in histroy
Who was greater?
Alex, Hanni, or Caesar?

Alex never lost a battle and united an empire.

Correct but sorry, what evidence do you have for all greeks being Bi?

Lots of historical evidence in the form of poems and love letters between educated greeks, and whole combat units comprised exclusively of male lovers...

Bisexuality was very common in ancient Greece. Although admittedly not ALL greeks were bi, bisexuality was respected because it was believed true love could only be attained by two men. Women were for producing offsprings and taking care of house duty, and men were there for love and pleasure.

There was also some sort of institutionalized pederastry(sp?) where educated men took teenagers as apprentices, and there frequently were relationships, sexual or affective, that developed between the mature teacher and teenage student.

There are a lot of sources out there documenting sexual diversity in ancient Greece, mainly because at that time and place sexuality was viewed as something beautiful, and the subject wasn't taboo.

It was the way their culture was... I'm sure there were still some people who were completely gay or completely straight, but basically is someone was even mildly bisexual they just went ahead with it. At least the men... I'm not sure about the women.

It wasn't that they were all bisexual. It was more that it was fashionable for elder men to have younger male consorts. It was more an indictment of the opinion of women in Greek culture than anything else.

People tend to think of Alexander the great but was he really that great.

That is the questions

You see when it all comes down to is how long did he keep the snakes alive for??

I'm sorry, but I believe your facts are a little off... I'm interested in knowing where you got them from. What are your sources?

The Decline and Fall of Pratically Everybody, by Will Cuppy, if I'm not mistaken

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/Alexanderama.html

It wasn't that they were all bisexual. It was more that it was fashionable for elder men to have younger male consorts. It was more an indictment of the opinion of women in Greek culture than anything else.

I think that's it's a little disrespectful to imply that their relationships were only for the sake of fashion... any more than you can say it is now fashionable for a man to have a woman about his age as a lover/wife. It may be the way things often end up, but it isn't about fashion.

The Decline and Fall of Pratically Everybody, by Will Cuppy, if I'm not mistaken

Is that so? I'll have to look into it...

I personally believe that Alexander "The Great" is the most overrated person in history. Yeah, he conquered the known world, but he only really beat the Persians and the Persians were a ragtag outfit by then, hardly the powerful force they were before. Sure, he wins points for tactics and the speed with which he conquered the world, but I wouldn't call him one of the greatest conquerors who ever lived.

People like Shalmaneser III and Pompey The Great, people who actually defeated several quality opponents, are people I'd rank ahead of Alexander, although I'd say the greatest conqueror ever was Genghis Khan. I mean, the Mongols literally took 33% of the world's total land area. That has to count for something.

I think that's it's a little disrespectful to imply that their relationships were only for the sake of fashion... any more than you can say it is now fashionable for a man to have a woman about his age as a lover/wife. It may be the way things often end up, but it isn't about fashion.

Well, disrespectful or not, alot of the relationships between the older men and the young boys were not about love. Much like older wealthy men today have trophy wives, the affairs with younger boys were less about genuine love and more about status symbols. That's not saying that all homosexual relationships in ancient Greece were like that, just the specific variety I'm talking about.

the greatest conqueror ever was Genghis Khan. I mean, the Mongols literally took 33% of the world's total land area. That has to count for something.

Wasn't a lot of it just steppe, though?

Depends. Are they all fielding armies of exact same strength?
yerp.

The question is simple, although the conversation is bound not to be:

What do you think of Alexander the Great? (I won't bother asking anyone to keep the conversation non-movie related, but I would like to say that the question isn't meant to be. I mean Alexander the Great, the very real person who was alive once, not the movie character.)

Great but brutal commander.

*on top this time Cog. No deat this.*

I just had a debate similar to this in histroy
Who was greater?
Alex, Hanni, or Caesar?

Alex never lost a battle and united an empire.
Khan's empire was more united. It didn't crunmble after his death.

Wasn't a lot of it just steppe, though?

Exactly. Also, consider that Khan lived like eight hundred years after Alexander. The “known” world had expanded by then. I consider Alexander the Great a better conquer because he was from an actually civilized people, while calling the Mongols a civilization is a little too generous.

Exactly. Also, consider that Khan lived like eight hundred years after Alexander. The “known” world had expanded by then. I consider Alexander the Great a better conquer because he was from an actually civilized people, while calling the Mongols a civilization is a little too generous.

Why does the level of civilization determine who was a better conquerer? Temujin conquered all of China, a great civilization.

Khan's empire was more united. It didn't crunmble after his death.

Khan’s empire continued to expand after this death. Had Alexander lived for 200-300 years like the Golden Horde, he would have been able to conquer much more land.

Why does the level of civilization determine who was a better conquerer? Temujin conquered all of China, a great civilization.

A conquering civilization might leave some social impact while conquering barbarians don’t do much but take gold.

A conquering civilization might leave some social impact while conquering barbarians don’t do much but take gold.

Then the Mongols were not good rulers. But they were amazing conquerers.

Then the Mongols were not good rulers. But they were amazing conquerers.

They didn't rule to the extent of the Romans but they were still nominal rulers of the places they attacked, exacting tribute in the form of money and slaves as well as forcing subject peoples and their kings to fight in their armies. It depends on your definition of rule.

Who would win: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, or Genghis Khan?

I would have to say Hannibal, as many historians have named him the greatest strategist of all time. His use of Numidian horsmen(the best horsemen in the world at the time) was such that he, with only 30,000 men and half of them untrained Gaulic warriors, defeated 100,000 well trained disceplined Legionaires at the Battle of Cannea. He infented guerilla warfare! His use of surprise at the Battle of Trasminea was the slaughter of 80,000 Legionaires. He marching and counter marching up and down the boot of italy was most impressive. His very name was used by Roman women to scare their children to behave. He stayed in Italy harrasing the Romans for 13 years without support, no other commander in histroy has lasted so long in enemy territory. And true he made one mistake at the battle of Zama, he was fighter Scipio "Aficanus" (as he was later known), who emulated Hannibals tactics and used also a tactics that Alexander the great used. When hannibals elaphants charged, the legions split into columns with the elaphants going down the rows(Alexander did this to avoid Persian Chariots). And even after his defeat he brought his country back to economical wealth and then when Carthage was destroyed forever by the romans he fled to other countries training other armies to fight better than the romans.For more on Hannibal follow this link (http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/hannibal-barca.htm), or you can see if I'm not telling you the true facts which is true. ALso Hannibal was able to speak several different languages, Numidian, Greek, Latin, and Gaulic. Because of this his men were bound to him through respect and love of thier commander. Khan's army was made up of defeated tribes who would respect him but not love him. Alexanders men loved him but they said no when he wanted to go on. Hannibals men never once questioned him on any decision.

Now this is not to say that Genghis Khan or Alexander weren't brilliant, but I think if it came down to a battlefield, Hannibal would win outright,

I would have to say Hannibal, as many historians have named him the greatest strategist of all time. His use of Numidian horsmen(the best horsemen in the world at the time) was such that he, with only 30,000 men and half of them untrained Gaulic warriors, defeated 100,000 well trained disceplined Legionaires at the Battle of Cannea. He infented guerilla warfare! His use of surprise at the Battle of Trasminea was the slaughter of 80,000 Legionaires. He marching and counter marching up and down the boot of italy was most impressive. His very name was used by Roman women to scare their children to behave. He stayed in Italy harrasing the Romans for 13 years without support, no other commander in histroy has lasted so long in enemy territory. And true he made one mistake at the battle of Zama, he was fighter Scipio "Aficanus" (as he was later known), who emulated Hannibals tactics and used also a tactics that Alexander the great used. When hannibals elaphants charged, the legions split into columns with the elaphants going down the rows(Alexander did this to avoid Persian Chariots). And even after his defeat he brought his country back to economical wealth and then when Carthage was destroyed forever by the romans he fled to other countries training other armies to fight better than the romans.For more on Hannibal follow this link (http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/hannibal-barca.htm), or you can see if I'm not telling you the true facts which is true. ALso Hannibal was able to speak several different languages, Numidian, Greek, Latin, and Gaulic. Because of this his men were bound to him through respect and love of thier commander. Khan's army was made up of defeated tribes who would respect him but not love him. Alexanders men loved him but they said no when he wanted to go on. Hannibals men never once questioned him on any decision.

Now this is not to say that Genghis Khan or Alexander weren't brilliant, but I think if it came down to a battlefield, Hannibal would win outright,

I disagree. Hannibal is one of the greatest tacticians of all time without a doubt. Cannae is surely the most astounding victory on the face of human history. But, I like one of his own subordinates would say that Hannibal knew "how to gain a victory but not who to use one." I am referring to him not marching on Rome.

Many would disagree with me and say that to attack Rome would have been a mistake. He was after Cannae, still a long way from Rome. Sure his army lacked a large amount of the artillery that one would need when besieging an ancient city and for him to have attacked Rome and failed, would have caused the desertion of many of those gallic warriors who had joined his army in order to rid themselves of Roman rule. These are all valid arguments. BUT.

He did lose the war eventually and so I would argue that to have besieged Rome would have shattered the fragile alliances between Rome and several of the other Italian city-states. Rome was well-defended but not impregnable. I feel that Rome was Hannibal's for the taking.

I feel that the ability of a Commander must not be purely looked at on a tactical level. Too many historians are obsessed with Cannae saying "This is a perfect victory". Well, yes, but ultimately it was a perfect victory that didn't achieve very much. And the side that won that perfect victory, lost the war. So I would say that Hannibal must be looked as a whole and not just on a single level. He ultimately failed in his objective which was to defeat Rome. Alexander and Genghis Khan achieved their objectives which were to defeat their rival powers (Persia and China respectively) and to expand their empire.

I am not saying that Hannibal was not a great commander. Far from it. But he was ultimately a commander who failed in his mission.

My choices for best ever commanders are categorised as follows:

Ancient Greek Commander: Epaminondas
Roman Commander: Julius Caesar
Ancient Commander from Elsewhere: Alexander the Great
British Medieval Commander: King Henry V
European Medieval Commander: Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa)
Other Medieval Commander: Genghis Khan
British Early Modern Commander: Oliver Cromwell/Marlborough/Wellington
Other Early Modern Commander: Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte
WWI Commander: Petain
WWII Commander: Rommel or Patton

Khan's empire was more united. It didn't crunmble after his death.
UMmm, I didn't ask about Khan. Of those three, (Caesar, Hannibal, or Alexander )Which is the greatest?

Then the Mongols were not good rulers. But they were amazing conquerers.

Wow. This statement is utterly incorrect.

Conquerors they were indeed, but due to the fact that they conquered the Chinese they had some of the most efficient beaureaucrats in the world at their disposal and they made use of them. They set tributes for the different districts of the empire, they set tithes for temples and taxes for cities. See: Ye Li Chutsai. Simple and brutally effective when they conquered, they kept this 'barbarian' way when they ruled other lands and it worked beautifully. Google 'Yassa' for more info. The Yassa was Genghis Khan's code of laws and, while primitive, was amazingly efficient. It outlined 'chivalry' amongst the Horde and was very effective in keeping his wild tribesmen in-line with what he had in mind. Though it did carry useless chaff laws like 'no bathing or contact with water during a thunderstorm', it was still simple and brutally effective...

Through the Yassa, Genghis Khan was able to reopen the great Silk Road from Persia into China. This inreased the prosperity of his lands tenfold while still keeping the power base of his empire in the Gobi. His innovations in communications were also revolutionary, as he founded the first 'pony express' from the sands of the Holy Land, through the peaks of Tibet and Kashmir, through the vastness of Cathay, and into the parched hell of the Gobi.

Marco Polo wrote during the reign of Kublai, Genghis Khan's grandson that 'A maiden could ride the length of the Khanate on a sleek mare, unguarded with a sack of silver, and would not be molested.' Why was safety of this sort possible in the wild places along the routes between great Cathay and the Kharesmian Empire? Because Genghis Khan's administration was a thing of genius, and, after all, who would dare to cross these demon riders and their great Khan, who was the scourge of God? Noone. That's who.

Barbarian conquerors they were, but make no mistake, they were able administrators and lawmakers.

If you gave Hannibal a medieval army he might be a match for Genghis, but I doubt it. Ole Temujin would have marched on Rome, razed it to the ground, and retreated for the winter. He would have left the Romans to suffer through the winter and came back in the spring, to defeat the remnant. Hannibal's army just couldn't sustain the campaign and the losses suffered from his 'great' victories. One thing about the Mongols was that logistics were never, ever a problem. Hannibal was simply too far from his base of supplies, with not enough promises kept by the Gallic and Germanian tribes.

Of the three Ancient age commanders, though, I woud say Alexander, simply for the mouse VS elephant aspect of attacking Persia, even if it was a shadow of Cyrys' Persia.

Wow. This statement is utterly incorrect.

Conquerors they were indeed, but due to the fact that they conquered the Chinese they had some of the most efficient beaureaucrats in the world at their disposal and they made use of them. They set tributes for the different districts of the empire, they set tithes for temples and taxes for cities. See: Ye Li Chutsai. Simple and brutally effective when they conquered, they kept this 'barbarian' way when they ruled other lands and it worked beautifully. Google 'Yassa' for more info. The Yassa was Genghis Khan's code of laws and, while primitive, was amazingly efficient. It outlined 'chivalry' amongst the Horde and was very effective in keeping his wild tribesmen in-line with what he had in mind. Though it did carry useless chaff laws like 'no bathing or contact with water during a thunderstorm', it was still simple and brutally effective...

Through the Yassa, Genghis Khan was able to reopen the great Silk Road from Persia into China. This inreased the prosperity of his lands tenfold while still keeping the power base of his empire in the Gobi. His innovations in communications were also revolutionary, as he founded the first 'pony express' from the sands of the Holy Land, through the peaks of Tibet and Kashmir, through the vastness of Cathay, and into the parched hell of the Gobi.

Marco Polo wrote during the reign of Kublai, Genghis Khan's grandson that 'A maiden could ride the length of the Khanate on a sleek mare, unguarded with a sack of silver, and would not be molested.' Why was safety of this sort possible in the wild places along the routes between great Cathay and the Kharesmian Empire? Because Genghis Khan's administration was a thing of genius, and, after all, who would dare to cross these demon riders and their great Khan, who was the scourge of God? Noone. That's who.

Barbarian conquerors they were, but make no mistake, they were able administrators and lawmakers.

If you gave Hannibal a medieval army he might be a match for Genghis, but I doubt it. Ole Temujin would have marched on Rome, razed it to the ground, and retreated for the winter. He would have left the Romans to suffer through the winter and came back in the spring, to defeat the remnant. Hannibal's army just couldn't sustain the campaign and the losses suffered from his 'great' victories. One thing about the Mongols was that logistics were never, ever a problem. Hannibal was simply too far from his base of supplies, with not enough promises kept by the Gallic and Germanian tribes.

Of the three Ancient age commanders, though, I woud say Alexander, simply for the mouse VS elephant aspect of attacking Persia, even if it was a shadow of Cyrys' Persia.

This is where your wrong. Khan was an awsome conquerer, but his empire did not survive as a whole after his death. It was split, China was under one khan russia was under another, and so was most of the middle east which the Great Khan took as well. It split appart like Alexander's Empire. HIs Generals took different parts of it.

This is where your wrong. Khan was an awsome conquerer, but his empire did not survive as a whole after his death. It was split, China was under one khan russia was under another, and so was most of the middle east which the Great Khan took as well. It split appart like Alexander's Empire. HIs Generals took different parts of it.

Actually, the Mongol Empire stayed together for about roughly another 50 years or so after Genghis Khan's death- it only split into four different "Khanates" after the death of Genghis' grandson, Kublai.

(Also- to make note of something popping up elsewhere in the thread- "Khan" is a title...it's not a last name)

Regarding the "steppe" comment: this is true, but quite a bit of Mongol lands were useable too- the Mongols had in their possessions Mesopotamia, Persia, northern India and China, so it's not like they did not have any land to use.

I also agree with Sdaeriji that Hannibal's spectre diminished as the Romans eventually defeated him. As much as I don't like Alexander, he did ultimately defeat his enemy, whereas Hannibal did not. Also, I think it's pretty telling of Hannibal's abilities if he cannot come back from a mistake he made in battle (referring to Zama).

I would also like to enter the name of Shalmaneser III, the Assyrian Emperor who basically formed the Assyrian Empire. He may have lost at Qarqar, but he singlehandedly doubled Assyria's territory and made it one of the most feared Empires of the Near East in its time. For that, Shalmaneser must be recognized.

hey how do they know he was bi? Where does it say he is bi. I wanna know why every1 thinks that, i am curious. :(

hey how do they know he was bi? Where does it say he is bi. I wanna know why every1 thinks that, i am curious. :(

Hephaestion.

Hephaestion.

whats that??? :confused:

whats that??? :confused:

Alexander's best friend.

Alexander the great was exceptionally powerful, but past history shows the Persian army wasn't quite the optimal fighting force in the world. It doesn't show a strategic genius who doesn't figure out for a day that the easiest way to kill a hoplite phalanx full of Spartans is to pump them full of arrows, instead of charging the greatest soldiers ever to exist with peasants (admittedly, the main Spartan asset in Thermopylae was the land, but it's no excuse for the Persians. Arrows have a tendancy to negate a terrain advantage as long as you can hit the entire opposing force). Nevertheless, to soundly beat such a large Empire, even past its prime, shows capability. Attack is always harder than defense.

As for the whole "who would win?", if we don't think of an extended campaign of the Grecian, Roman, and Carthaginian Empire, but instead think of an army/army clash, then Hannibal would take it, simply due to having a more flexible force than the other two. Hoplites and Legions are great if you can fight the enemy on your own terms, but not against an enemy who dictates the battle, such as hannibal done. Ceasar would be the weakest of the three, having the most disadvantaged troops (as both Hannibals and Alexanders army would have a hoplite element, whereas Ceasars consisted of Cohorts, with the thrusting gladius, leaving them woefully outranged.) Add to that Alexanders companions, and if you were to allow Hannibal elephants (even though they weren't that integral to Carthaginian battle tactics on the whole, we're representing each army at top form), then you have a Ceasar who is going to be completely destroyed by two foes who are many times more flexible. Assuming that Ceasar would be eliminated first, it'd come down to a clash between Alexander and Hannibal, where, with cunning, hannibal would win. Of course, should something disastrous, like hannibal dying, happen, then it's quite likely Alexander would win the day, as even with a hoplite inherent weakness, they are tough nuts to crack.

Well, there you have it.

On the subject of Alexander, they also said that he was touched by the Gods, due to his epilepsy. Did he ever have a siezure during a battle and have to be carried away sharpish?

Alexander the great was exceptionally powerful, but past history shows the Persian army wasn't quite the optimal fighting force in the world. It doesn't show a strategic genius who doesn't figure out for a day that the easiest way to kill a hoplite phalanx full of Spartans is to pump them full of arrows, instead of charging the greatest soldiers ever to exist with peasants (admittedly, the main Spartan asset in Thermopylae was the land, but it's no excuse for the Persians. Arrows have a tendancy to negate a terrain advantage as long as you can hit the entire opposing force).




I thought they did. You know, with the

First Spartan: the arrows of the Persians are so numerous they block out the sun.
Second Spartan: I am pleased, because we will get to fight in the shade!
First Spartan: Ha! Good one, Jeff!

They did. As I said, it took them a while to actually think of it though. The first charges was just peasants... then came the immortals, then came the arrows and the spartans were all dead.


Either that or I got the chronology wrong. Either way, it's a meh point. it took days for the Persians to get past, when with a proper use of tactics, three-hundred Spartans would be a simple matter for such a huge army (100,000, I believe) even if they were just peasants. I forgot about that quote though, kinda puts my whole argument in the shadows, eh? eh? ah, forget it.

If I remember right, the Spartans held back every attack including the immortals, but were betrayed when one of thier men led the persians by a secret path around the spartan position, then the spartans fought to the last with sword, spear, fists, and even teeth.

Ephialtes. Toss-piece. (him, not you)

I was rather disspointed with how the epitaph sounds in Greek. I'd only ever heard the translation.
(go tell the Spartans, ye that passeth by/
that here obedient to their laws we lie)

(transliterated)
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti täde
keimetha tois keinon rhämasi peithomenoi

Not that this is really relevant in an Alexander thread...

A raging drunk who got lucky in battle. Too stupid to get an heir or to unite his kingdom.


Conquered the known world at the age of 25.

What have you done in your little life thus far?

*Eyes twitch uncontrollably*

Lucky?! Lucky?! The man's innovations to infantry, and combined infantry/cavalry tactics were nearly as important as those at Delium in shaping modern tactics! Lucky?!



for that you have to talk to his father Philippos. the macedons were SHEPERDS before his father showed up...

:eek:

Alexander's best friend.

when he died he declared him a god from the priests of Ammon-Zeus, in Egipt... homosexuality was a accepted idea in those times, almost every great greek was, except maybe for Pericles, but he was ugly so it doesn't count :cool:

Alexander the above average

About the whole Thermopole thing, my history teacher spent an entire day on it. (He also teaches Military History, which probably has something to do with it.) According to him, the Spartans were outnumbered 300-300,000, and yet they held off the persians for three days. They fought in a narrow strip of land, which gave the Spartans an advantage as they were better by far in hand to hand combat. The Spartans would wait for the Persians, combing their hair and the like, and when the Persians came, they all put on their helmets at the exact same time, like the droid army in Star Wars Episode I. The Spartans fought like hell, with various pointy things sticking out of them. Eventually, their spears would shatter, in which case the Spartans would fight with swords, which shattered. The the Spartans would fight with their arms, which also shattered, so they would then fight with biting, often without functional eyes. The Spartans lost when a traitor told Xerxes (the Persian king) about a path he could take around around the Spartans, surrounding them. This occurred and the Spartans died to the last man. Countless thousands of Persian were killed.

Xerxes led his forces to Athens; along the way he met 3,000 Spartans. When Xerxes saw those Lambdas on the Spartans' sheilds, he turned tail and ran for his ships, then that Athenian guy kicked his ass by ramming Xerxes's boats.

Alexander's best friend.

No, Alexander's "best friend".



<sigh>
Every student of Ancient Greek History knows that homosexual behaviour was common and accepted as NORMAL amongst the Greeks.
Ofcourse, technically Alexander was a barbarian from Macedonia, not Greek at all according to the Ancient Greeks. In any case, that's beside the point.

Hephaestion was Alexander's companion, he was always by his side. Comparisons are often made between those two and Achilleus and Patrokles.
Indeed, Alex had big ol' funeral games for Hephaestion after he died, just as did Achilleus for Patrokles. He also named a city for Hephaestion. Hardly things you'd do for just a friend. Does that make him his gay lover. Perhaps not, but certainly makes him very close to Alex. It is likely that Hephaestion was his lover, but as with anything from so long ago, we cannot prove it to a certainty. There's much innuendo though.


My thoughts on the man himself...
Well, he was an adept General with too much lust for power and alcohol.

No, Alexander's "best friend".



<sigh>
Every student of Ancient Greek History knows that homosexual behaviour was common and accepted as NORMAL amongst the Greeks.
Ofcourse, technically Alexander was a barbarian from Macedonia, not Greek at all according to the Ancient Greeks. In any case, that's beside the point.

Hephaestion was Alexander's companion, he was always by his side. Comparisons are often made between those two and Achilleus and Patrokles.
Indeed, Alex had big ol' funeral games for Hephaestion after he died, just as did Achilleus for Patrokles. He also named a city for Hephaestion. Hardly things you'd do for just a friend. Does that make him his gay lover. Perhaps not, but certainly makes him very close to Alex. It is likely that Hephaestion was his lover, but as with anything from so long ago, we cannot prove it to a certainty. There's much innuendo though.


My thoughts on the man himself...
Well, he was an adept General with too much lust for power and alcohol.

Hey, I wasn't trying to knock the guy for being gay- in fact, that'd be a pretty poor argument. I was just going by what I know.

Hey, I wasn't trying to knock the guy for being gay- in fact, that'd be a pretty poor argument. I was just going by what I know.

Sorry, I was replying to Pallawish, not you :) I'd figured that I should probably expand on my one word answer...

I guess just leaving a big gap isn't as clear as I thought. And my quoting you and adding quotation marks was just a little bit of humour...

I see. My mistake then.

Patton would still kick his ass, and stick one of those long pole-arms up his ass. :D

He conquered the whole world. "Huh but what about America and the rest of asia/africa?" Well they we're not included on Alexander's map. No wonder he stopped at India, all he would find beyond the indus was a bit of coastline before the Okeanos river ;)

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/map/ancient-world-map-1482.jpg

This is a medieval map based on the info a greek scientist, Ptolemaius, had in about 150 ad. So Alexander knew even less about the world then is displayed on this map.

*Eyes twitch uncontrollably*

Lucky?! Lucky?! The man's innovations to infantry, and combined infantry/cavalry tactics were nearly as important as those at Delium in shaping modern tactics! Lucky?!

Uniting a Kingdom takes time, and how can you realistically say his was less united than others at the time? Yes he died before he had an heir, but the man had bloody well conquered most of the then known world.


Alexander's infantry improvements were not his own, but instituted by his father, Philip of Macedon.
Alexander was able to conquer Persia because of their useless satrap system of government, so what did he do?? He copied it!!! No wonder his 'Empire' fell to pieces.He may have been an able tactition, but he was not a good leader. But he was not a good general. The reason he couldn't move further into India was because his soldiers didn't want to...I can hardly imaging that happening to a popular and charismatic leader, that which Alexander is often portrayed as.
I think of all the leaders throughout history, he is the least deserving of the title 'Great'

He conquered the whole world. "Huh but what about America and the rest of asia/africa?" Well they we're not included on Alexander's map. No wonder he stopped at India, all he would find beyond the indus was a bit of coastline before the Okeanos river ;)

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/map/ancient-world-map-1482.jpg

This is a medieval map based on the info a greek scientist, Ptolemaius, had in about 150 ad. So Alexander knew even less about the world then is displayed on this map.
I didn't actually realise that they knew so much....

But anyhow, without Alexander, the world would be a rather different place...If Persia had still been the dominant power in the East how big could the Romans have ever got? He Grecianised (I know, it's a bad word) the whole Eastern world, thereby giving the Romans at least some some cultural common ground with these areas (the Romans also borrowed much from Greek culture, where do you think they got the idea for the Republic?) and so allowed the new power in the West an easier time.

Alexander's infantry improvements were not his own, but instituted by his father, Philip of Macedon.
Alexander was able to conquer Persia because of their useless satrap system of government, so what did he do?? He copied it!!! No wonder his 'Empire' fell to pieces.He may have been an able tactition, but he was not a good leader. But he was not a good general. The reason he couldn't move further into India was because his soldiers didn't want to...I can hardly imaging that happening to a popular and charismatic leader, that which Alexander is often portrayed as.
I think of all the leaders throughout history, he is the least deserving of the title 'Great'
Oh come on, the core of his army had marched from the Mediterranean, they hadn't returned home in years and the Indian sub-continent must have seemed a strange and bizzarre place to them, can you really expect them to be eager to continue? The army reforms were emplaced by his father, but it was Alexander's personal brilliance that allowed the destruction of one of the then greatest Empires in the world by a Greek adventurer...The continuation of Persian forms of government is only logical, he had gained the support of the new lands through his proven ability to defeat any army Persia sent against him, but without them his armies would have been stranded in hostile territories with huge supply lines, to change the system of government fundamentally would most likely have promoted insurrection and could only have been achieved had the Empire lasted...As it was, at his early death, with no-one adequate to take up the reigns of power and continue to terrorise his domains into supporting him, the Empire fell apart and the only major changes were the fall of a mighty empire and the spread of Grecian culture to much of the East...

Alexander's infantry improvements were not his own, but instituted by his father, Philip of Macedon.
Alexander was able to conquer Persia because of their useless satrap system of government, so what did he do?? He copied it!!! No wonder his 'Empire' fell to pieces.He may have been an able tactition, but he was not a good leader. But he was not a good general. The reason he couldn't move further into India was because his soldiers didn't want to...I can hardly imaging that happening to a popular and charismatic leader, that which Alexander is often portrayed as.
I think of all the leaders throughout history, he is the least deserving of the title 'Great'

Oh, for the sake of the gods! His soldiers didn't want to keep fighting wars for the rest of their lives, were maybe hoping to go home sometimes before they died, and that means they didn't love him? And as for the satrap thing, that's one of the smartest things he did... he never tried to destroy Persian customs or the Persian way of life, and although that sometimes made the Macedonians frustrated with him it made the Persians accept him as their King.

You go on admiring Hitler the Great, but your argument isn't going to make anyone who actually understands Alexander think any less of him.

I didn't actually realise that they knew so much....

But anyhow, without Alexander, the world would be a rather different place...If Persia had still been the dominant power in the East how big could the Romans have ever got? He Grecianised (I know, it's a bad word) the whole Eastern world, thereby giving the Romans at least some some cultural common ground with these areas (the Romans also borrowed much from Greek culture, where do you think they got the idea for the Republic?) and so allowed the new power in the West an easier time.

The Romans were influenced by Greek culture as soon as they entered southern Italy, where they proceeded to capture the Greek colonies established there in relatively short order. However, the establishment of the Republic predates the southern Italy invasion (around 270 BC), as the Romans expelled their final king, Tarquin The Proud, in 509 BC. They didn't establish the Republic because of the Greeks.

As for the Persians, the Romans might have had an easy time of it with them. The Persians were not much of opponents when Alexander showed up, and certainly wouldn't have been much of opponents when Rome would have showed up. Besides, Rome's momentum of conquering lasted until about the mid-150s AD, so they would have probably defeated the Persians anyway. Furthermore, if Persia lasted to the days of Pompey The Great (which would have been doubtful as the Persian Empire was falling apart when Alexander came around), they would have been around 500 years old- certainly their old age at the very least would make them easy targets for the Roman Empire.

Alexander was a horrible person that lost the territories he won about ten years later. He never conquered the world or a lot of it at all. He was a homosexual and when his male partner died he pulled his forces out of india. After he defeated persia, he went around with the kings mother and daughter or wife i forget which. He recieved all victory due to the phalanx style which was invented hundreds of years before him and lost to elephants and a monsoon.


If you want to talk about power then talk about Atilla (Pronounced At ill a or a till a), Ghengis kahn, the prussians, or Rome before the Ceasars.

He recieved all victory due to the phalanx style which was invented hundreds of years before him and lost to elephants and a monsoon.


Uh, from what I recall Alexander dealt with the war elephants of the Maghadan Empire fairly easily, much in the same way he dealt with the Persian chariots: Simply break and seperate the phalanx at the point of impact and allow it through, feathering the massive targets the entire way to the front rank, and then assaulting the weakened beast with their spears. The true strength of the war elephants was simply their shock value. Their immense size, while intimidating, made for an easy target for slingers and bowmen.

The only reason the phalanx was truly defeated and discarded was the flexible sword formations that came about in the centuries after Alexander's death. The phalanx was simply too rigid and awkward to compete with the far more maneuverable 'legion'.

Alexander was a horrible person that lost the territories he won about ten years later. He never conquered the world or a lot of it at all. He was a homosexual and when his male partner died he pulled his forces out of india. After he defeated persia, he went around with the kings mother and daughter or wife i forget which. He recieved all victory due to the phalanx style which was invented hundreds of years before him and lost to elephants and a monsoon.


If you want to talk about power then talk about Atilla (Pronounced At ill a or a till a), Ghengis kahn, the prussians, or Rome before the Ceasars.

I believe that that "that" should have been a "who", and he didn't technically lose his territories until he was dead, which doesn't count because he was well, well, dead. He didn't conquer the world, but he did a pretty good job with the part of the world that the Greeks knew about at the time. He was, indeed, probably homosexual or bisexual, but he giving up on India didn't have that much to do with Hephaestion's death, it was because his army insisteed on it. As for the "kings mother and daughter or wife i forget which" thing, he was in fact very good friends with Darius's mother and later married one of Darius's daughter, but I don't really see how treating the people he conquered decently was a bad thing. He received victory due to not only the phalanx, but his ability to lead it, and I would like to remind that he never technically lost.

Also, this comment may be a little frivolous, but I for one don't want to talk about power. I want to talk about Alexander (thank you for obliging me, by the way.)

As for the "kings mother and daughter or wife i forget which thing", he was in fact very good friends with Darius's mother and later married one of Darius's daughter, but I don't really see how treating the people he conquered decently was a bad thing.

Hmm...
If this is entirely true, one wonders where his name "Alexander the Horned One" came from.

Just something to think about, I havn't really thought much about past the idea that people don't like to be conquered. But if he treated them well, surely the conquered peoples wouldn't have been so upset, certainly not enough to coin this alternative name and have it last through the centuries also.

There is a world of difference between treating the vanquished remnant of Persian royalty with respect and kindness, than say, hanging a thousand common men on a gibbet when putting down a rebellion. Alexander might have treated any royalty he took with kindness and care, like the Sogdians, on the other hand, he would have thought nothing of boiling a commoner in oil for looting.

Two different worlds, my friends, especially back then.

And was it 'The Horned One' or 'The Horned Lord'? I seem to recall both, but I dunno if both were Alexanders or just another name in the thousands of fantasy books I've read over the years.

If I recall correctly, The decline and fall of practically everybody was mentioned earlier in this thread. In order to properly be able to make reference to it, I purchased it today at a used book store (had it been more expensive I would have considered it a waste of money, but I figured that the arguing power was worth a dollar.)

I would like to say that I find at least the section on Alexander to be completely idiotic, and I am glad that I bought the book so that at least it won't fall into the hands of someone who would mistakenly believe it. I haven't read the rest of the book, nor even when I do will I know entirely what is true and what isn't since I know next to nothing about most of the people mentioned in it, but I have no reason to believe any of the rest to be any more legitimately based on fact than the part about Alexander.

For the sake of not writing anything too long, since I think long posts are often skimmed over, I shall refrain from going into detail here about the individuals things that I found incorrect and inexcusable; however, should anyone who has read it feel like presenting items in it that they considered true, I would be happy to explain my reasons for believing it to be untrue, poorly presented, or both.

He's an ass pounding drunk barbarian.

Yea, he was a good fighting man, but so what?

He got drunk all the time, he destoryed the huge librarys at Persepolis, not the mention PERSEPOLIS itself. He burned the entire fucking city down.

I mean, yea he was sort of ok when he tried uniting Persia and Greece, creating Helenistic culture, but he didn't know when to just stop.

But ironically, Macedonians are ethnic descendants of Persians

Agreed.

Alexander was a homosexual fake Greek who took jollies in raping defenceless Persians. He was a cultural vandal who laid waste to the greatest civilization of the ancient world. He was a drunkard who though burning a palace far larger than Versailles, with collections of literature from all over the world was a fun activity. He was a maniac who believed he was a God and forced Greek culture on Persians while he himself became more like a Persian Shah.

Hmm...
If this is entirely true, one wonders where his name "Alexander the Horned One" came from.


The "horned one" was because of coins made showing Alexander with the horns of Zeus-Ammon, by the way.

Agreed.

Alexander was a homosexual fake Greek who took jollies in raping defenceless Persians. He was a cultural vandal who laid waste to the greatest civilization of the ancient world. He was a drunkard who though burning a palace far larger than Versailles, with collections of literature from all over the world was a fun activity. He was a maniac who believed he was a God and forced Greek culture on Persians while he himself became more like a Persian Shah.

I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but...

This is not the first time I've heard crap attempts to explain what Alexander was like from people whose knowledge of him probably only comes from other similar crap attempts, it will probably not be the last time, and it has never and will never hold any merit to me, because your untruths are senseless and your truths stem from largely fictional stories or from a misunderstanding of situations.

For writings on Alexander the Great there are numerous sources:

Some I would recommend are “the Face of Battle”, by John Keegan. Keegan is one of the better military historians of our time in print who was hoped to inspire the next generation of military historians who really never emerged. While it only has one section dedicated to Al, it is well written.

Another great book is “Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army” by Donald Engels. This is an excellent history book that includes such ancient facts as the casualty figures of each campaign and how they died, as well as the complex algebraic formula used to calculate how many pack ponies would be required to move “n” amount of logistical load. It’s a book anyone interested in the subject should read.

As far as the Quran goes, while I am not a member of the Islam faith I do own a copy of the Quran (amongst a bunch of other religious texts who’ve tried to convert me over the years) and have read it and discussed the book with elders of that faith. Enough to know that Alexander’s influence on the Middle East was so profound that a chapter of the Quran is devoted to him (this often confuses a lot of scholars, given that Al was a bit on the pagan side of the worshipping, but very devoted nevertheless). I’ve personally never quite figured out this contradiction myself, other than the Arabs that came after the Persians depicted him as Arab and needed to claim him as their own (the same way the Greeks do today in army recruiting posters).

There’s at least four other excellent books on the subject I’ve read, but I would suggest that the trouble of tracking down each and every single book that I’ve ever read on a subject I’ve studied is more than the question of me having read any good books on the subject is worth to me. I would suggest that anyone interested in these kind of topics shy away from badly written coffee table books (with more pictures than info) and whose content is pretty much based on researching equally badly written coffee table books.

The Bruce

A personal favorite of mine is "Alexander of Macedon" by Peter Green.