Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great...?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great...?
    Posted: 09-Jun-2010 at 10:30
Alexander not only led the longest continuous and most successful campaign in history, he was not only one of the very few general ever unbeaten in the field, but he was also one of the bravest and best soldiers in his army who personally led assaults and was among the first to climb enemy battlements. But even more, he had a deep interest for science, showed a profound understanding of administrative matters and, above all, he had a political vision of a Greek-Persian merger.

By contrast, that murderous Mongolian cattle drover was not to be seen anywhere near the front when push comes to shove. 
Back to Top
Shield-of-Dardania View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 23-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 357
  Quote Shield-of-Dardania Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2010 at 02:57
Alexander simply defeated an old king of a decayed ancient empire, and he was glorified for centuries. But if you look back, his own empire collapsed in short order. He didn't even manage to set up a proper succession mechanism which could have secured the rule of his own dynasty for a while.
 
His own army even refused to heed his command to proceed to fight against the northern Indian kingdom of Magadha, because their 600,00-man, 9,000-elephant army would have beaten Alexander's puny Greco-Macedonian army - cavalry, phalanx and all - to a pulp in the hot, thickly wooded Indian jungle.
 
Yes, I have to agree with Grabben. Alexander is extremely, extremely overrated.


Edited by Shield-of-Dardania - 18-May-2010 at 03:00
History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.
Back to Top
rapala View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Oct-2005
Location: Finland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 43
  Quote rapala Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 00:49
Compared to Alexander the greats army, a mongol army consisted of only cavalry, the only good cavalry unit that Alexander had was companion cavalry his own bodyguard. Depends on the enviorment if its a large plain then i guess horse archers would have an advantage, small plains lots of forests then i guess Alexander (hard to maneuver in tight terrain for horse archers). The mongols didn't invade Novgorod for this reason, germany and france would be hard since the countries are heavily forested, for example in battle of Tours a infernior infantry based army beat a horse archer army.

Not only that Alexander was the first commander that won a battle against horse archers on large plains. But still it depends on the terrain if he is going to win or lose.

I don't think Genghis khan was anything close to a commander, all battles where fought by other commanders like Subotai and other. so this thread should be Subotai vs Alexander the great. One thing you guys are wrong is that you say brutality makes you better, huh i thought it was tactics and good soldiers, everyone can be brutal don't be stupid.


Edited by rapala - 15-May-2010 at 00:50
Back to Top
MitJD View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
  Quote MitJD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 17:07
They are similar because both of these guys were very good leaders who usually won their battles and fought with brutality. To me, Genghis Khan fought with more brutality with Alexander, actually stating that he is God's Scourge, and if people hadn't made such sin then he wouldn't have been sent to punish them. Alexander never lost a battle, and controlled all of Greece and i believe he was the Pharoh of Egypt. He died of a sickness, but it was possible that he could've lost his next battle because his men didn't want to go on because thousands were lost in the Susa desert and they were tired. The armies ahead had elephants. So Alexander would probably have been stopped. Now if you're wondering who is better, I'm not for sure.
Back to Top
Grabben View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2010
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Grabben Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2010 at 13:53
Genghis Khan is the father of  0,2% of the world population today and killed 40 million people as he conquered. he destroyed four of the strongest nations in Asia and is responsible for the fall of the persian culture (as one of the leading nations in technology and science back then). he conquered Asia (except India, Japan and Anatolia) and managed to keep it!

Alexander fought one corrupt major power and freed the persians from the stupidity of its stupid kings (well lets face it those last kings werent as just and awesome as the founders of achaemenids were) everything else you already know probably cause of how famous that guy is!

to me gengis khan is far better than Alexander. at brutality, at diplomacy, at justice and at ruling... 

only one asian king can beat Gengis khan and that is Cyrus the Great. Cyrus fought four major powers, INVENTED human rights and religious freedom. Cyrus grew to become the hero of all the ancient Greece (he was even Alexanders Hero) Cyrus didn't have a throne ready for him nor did he have a huge ass army ready for him to conquer the world with (neither did Genghis khan) while Alexander had already a throne to a country already powerful with an army trained as shit! 

Alexander is extremely overrated! Cyrus is overrated amongst Persians only (since they boast about him so much) and Genghis khan has yet to become overrated :D but other famous Asian conquerors are being less talked about or discussed like Nadir Shah the last conqueror of Asia also called the Asian Napoleon since he created the same situation Napoleon Created in Europe in Asia. to most of you its not a big deal but Russian, British, French, Ottoman, Chinese,  Indian and Mughal leaders all followed his actions since everyone was effected and relied on him!
i hope i answered your question but i do know that  i kinda went beyond the answer! :D
If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race,
creed and color,we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.
  - George Aiken
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2010 at 12:09
How are they similar and how are they different? Give me as many facts as possible.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.064 seconds.