Alexander the Great
My question is: Do you really think Alexander the Great would be the same, if he didn't go after his fathers tactics? Or do you think he would do it better?
I'll do the Jurnis trick and let next poster start off
Alexander the Great
My question is: Do you really think Alexander the Great would be the same, if he didn't go after his fathers tactics? Or do you think he would do it better?
I'll do the Jurnis trick and let next poster start off
ProLurker
Woow that was fast
ProLurker
grrr how do you make a poll!!!!!!!! it wont let me
Scroll down til it says:
Allow poll (box)
how many answers: (4)
ProLurker
Alexander the Great was far more then a man who used one tactic to win battles.
It wasn't simply the tactic which made him a victor, it was how he deployed the tactic. Military strategy. If he hadn't had it (I wish I could remember what it was called....), then as a brilliant tactician, he would have come up with another, equally effective unit formation that he could have deployed just as successfully, perhaps more so. "A great man uses the tools he's given, to do the jobs he needs to do." That's what Alexander the Great did. But without that, I have no doubt he would still have dominated as he did.
You can't look to the past, and try to quibble about what might have been. You need to look at facts, and extract your own conclusions from them.
Philip II had already united a large part of Northern Greece before Alexander succeeded him and left him with an experienced army with advanced tactics, weapons, and seige equipment for that time period. Alexander may have been a great leader, and I am sure would have still done great things even without that, but he would not have been able to do as much as he did without the legacy his father began.
Killing people never solves anything but it keeps them out of your hair while you think of an alternative.
Bookmarks