Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheNightIsLost t1_j29aaqj wrote

Except Phillip of Macedon. His son proved far greater than he could hope to be.

91

zucksucksmyberg t1_j29locl wrote

There was a quote, I can't remember where I read it and paraphrasing it "Will Alexander still be considered "Great" if his empire fragmented before he died?"

Sure Alexander was an able conqueror but administering an empire as large as he carved is another matter. It literally fragmented at his death bed.

Also begs the idea if Heraclius is gonna be considered one of the "Greatest" Roman Emperors if he died a year or two before the Rashidun Caliphate undid his victories.

54

TheNightIsLost t1_j29mkp9 wrote

Alexander was the greatest conqueror in history, but he was not really a great king. He was basically his mom's puppet in Macedon and had to try to conquer new lands before he could consider himself sovereign....and then he screwed things up due to his Persophilia and so his generals took over after he died.

In fact, they may well have helped him along by poisoning him, but that's not confirmed.

24

zucksucksmyberg t1_j29nbza wrote

Highly likely one of his Companion Generals poisoned him. His father was assasinated too after all.

With regards to being the "Greatest" Conqueror, I rate Genghis a little bit higher than Alexander, who also happened to be a great administrator.

23

TheNightIsLost t1_j29rjlf wrote

The Mongols had a LOT of conquerors though. There was only one Alexander, but there were dozens of great Mongol generals.

And to make things better, the Mongol Empire coalesced at precisely the time when the Number 1 breaker of steppe empires, China, was in no position to fight them thanks to a horrible civil war and the dumbest goddamned Dynasty to ever rule the country.

It also helped that the other great horse riding empire, the Muslims, were basically in pieces at the time. So the Mongols could easily defeat them one at a time.

They weren't quite as lucky when fighting empires that were perfectly fine tho. The Indians beat them so easily that they barely even remember fighting them at all. The Vietnamese utterly humiliated them, hilariously so.

18

AdamantEevee t1_j2a6kop wrote

Tell me more about this dumbass dynasty

10

TheNightIsLost t1_j2a7dow wrote

Song Dynasty. Idiots literally funded the Mongols after Genghis Khan died, which should have led to the empire collapsing, and then got attacked once the Jin had been destroyed by the Mongols.

Their own military also sucked, because the entire court was basically working for the enemies, and the generals constantly had to relay each battle's strategy to the court even when the battles were days away, which mean they almost always lacked any initiative.

If it had been literally ANY other dynasty, they could have finished the Mongols off. It's not like Genghis Khan was the first steppe conqueror China had faced. But the Song constantly kept snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and ensured all of China got conquered by foreigners for the first time in history.

15

khoabear t1_j2bnrhl wrote

It's a southern dynasty, so of course they would be run by incompetents and assholes who put themselves above all else.

−2

provocative_bear t1_j2c8y8r wrote

You have to be more specific. The basic story of China is about 6000 years of a cycle of a competent emperor coming to power, each successive emperor in the dynasty is worse than the last, it gets to a point where the emperor is a legendary assclown, horrible things happen to the Chinese people, and then a rebellion/coup happens and there’s a new emperor.

4

ELDE8 t1_j29d8bs wrote

But he died 33 years old without any heirs

32

TheNightIsLost t1_j29kkdy wrote

Alexander did have a son who succeeded him. But the boy got killed and his kingdom usurped by a treacherous regent named Cassander right as he was old enough to take over.

49

az78 t1_j2bwqpn wrote

That's just a normal occupational hazard for dynastic children.

3

ArmedBull t1_j2au350 wrote

As much as I love Phillip II, Frederick William I of Prussia and Frederick the Great nailed the "kingdom building father" and "empire conquering son" combo so much better. Not as flashy, but a little longer lasting.

10

TheNightIsLost t1_j2c8hrj wrote

Frederick was a warmongering lunatic though, and only survived because of sheer luck.

Prussia then proceeded to follow his example of having basically no strategy asides from "ATTACK!!!", and ignoring anything beyond tactics.

3

Hydra57 t1_j2boa23 wrote

Well tbf he inherited his father’s army (with all of its crack discipline and veterancy), his father’s plans, and a fortuitous group loyal advisors and friends. Some speculate that Alexander was actually rather dangerously reckless, all things considered. His greatness can be attributed to the successes of his father and an extraordinary amount of luck.

4

TheNightIsLost t1_j2c89i6 wrote

Nah, he was pretty awesome. But yeah, he would have ended up like Napoleon if not for his dad leaving him that army.

1

Newmanuel t1_j2crq4n wrote

Killing hundreds of thousands of people and conquering lands doesn't make you a good ruler, especially if you can't keep the empire together afterwards.

He's great the way genghis khan is great. A world historic militarty leader. but a great emperor he was not

2

TheNightIsLost t1_j2crw2p wrote

Genghis Khan's empire lasted for a long time compared to Alexander's.

1

Newmanuel t1_j2ctfju wrote

fair enough, at least genghis had his successsion in order.

1

Archaeologoggles t1_j2ce4p9 wrote

Most of Alexander’s accomplishments were basically set up by his father like the army innovations or getting Greece behind him.

1

TheNightIsLost t1_j2ceuis wrote

Those were not his accomplishments, those were just some of the tools he used to set up his accomplishments.

I can't argue that if not for daddy dearest, Alex wouldn't have been able to start to become a great conqueror until he was in his 40s.

3

virginiamasterrace t1_j2c0oms wrote

There were 5 Roman emperors who ruled in succession, known as the “Five Good Emperors,” the last of whom was Marcus Aurelius. They shared the common distinction of not ascending to power through heredity, the last four being adopted heirs.

5

aitchnyu t1_j29d8ib wrote

That's why I'm conflicted about following Marcus Aurelius, should he reproach himself for short temper as a philosopher or be an iron fisted asshole?

3