Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Napoleon faced enemies of much greater size, who were just as technologically advanced as he was, revolutionized warfare, changed the French state and the state of Europe forever.
Sure Alexander the Great conquered more land in terms of size, but most of it was still occupied by only tribes or desert. Napoleon conquered the hardest armies, whilst mostly being outnumbered, and always had the constant enemy armies at the borders. Taking the achievements of both, Alexander was a great commander, and did fight some battles against the odds, but still, Napoleon takes it easily!
But then again, the eras of warfare were over 2000 years apart, so it really is hard to figure this out properly. But I'm just taking things into perspective by comparing enemy sizes by percentage and the percent of other armies were enemies and the amount of time he was pressed with war.
Alexander took more risks, and they were risks he would have been willing to accept the consequences of if he failed.
He was a visionary, and in addition to defeating armies and winning battles, he had an incredible impact on entire cultures.
The mark he left, transcended just who he was as a man and was a defining force for centuries after he died.
He was 'the Great'.
Napoleon was a man who when even given what amounted to a second chance, in about 100 days and due to his own narcissism and arrogance lost it all at Waterloo.
First off, the answer is no. Alxander was undefeated. Napolean was beaten in Russia, Liepzig, the invasion of France, and at Waterloo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
From one commentator:
Napoleon faced enemies of much greater size,
Alexander defeated three armies of Persians who were 3-5 times greater numerically, and went on to best the Scythians, various peoples in Afghanistan, and invade India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
who were just as technologically advanced as he was,
Alexander's opponenents were at least as technologically advanced, arguably moreso.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
revolutionized warfare,
Alexander revolutionized warfare more than Napolean. Napolean's concept of using his infantry as bayonet columns to, along with the cavalry, exploit gaps created by massed artillery was routinely defeated by Wellington's linear tactics. So no, it cannot be said that Napolean revolutionized warfare, becasue he was beaten by a guy doing the opposite of what he did. Or to say it another way, it was Wellington's system that was the greatest of its day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
changed the French state and the state of Europe forever.
Alexander changed the world forever. Research the "Hellenistic era."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
Sure Alexander the Great conquered more land in terms of size, but most of it was still occupied by only tribes or desert.
I am not sure who the commentator is who said this but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Most land is unsuitable for human habitation by Alexander conquered the major habitation centers of his day all the way to the Punjab. I am not sure how that can be minimalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
Napoleon conquered the hardest armies, whilst mostly being outnumbered, and always had the constant enemy armies at the borders.
Alexander faced far greater numerical odds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
Taking the achievements of both, Alexander was a great commander, and did fight some battles against the odds, but still, Napoleon takes it easily!
A statement based on nothing at all, as we have seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
But then again, the eras of warfare were over 2000 years apart, so it really is hard to figure this out properly.
Probably the most sensible thing said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
But I'm just taking things into perspective by comparing enemy sizes by percentage
You might want to do some more studying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
and the percent of other armies were enemies
This is gibberish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
and the amount of time he was pressed with war.
Virtually all of Alexander's adult life was spent at war.
Alexander took more risks, and they were risks he would have been willing to accept the consequences of if he failed.
He was a visionary, and in addition to defeating armies and winning battles, he had an incredible impact on entire cultures.
The mark he left, transcended just who he was as a man and was a defining force for centuries after he died.
He was 'the Great'.
Napoleon was a man who when even given what amounted to a second chance, in about 100 days and due to his own narcissism and arrogance lost it all at Waterloo.
Unfortunately Napoleon did not have the good fortune of dying at the top of his game like Alexander. As far as narcissism and megalomania Alexander had no shortage of that. In fact some of his decisions near the end of his life like marching his army home through a desert suggest that he was more than capable of making colossal, career ending blunders like when Napoleon invaded Russia had he lived longer.
As much as Napoleon became the ideal military commander for half a century, he also left a disastrous legacy as was made abundantly apparent during the American Civil War. Those who were enamored with Napoleon's military "genius" were blinded to the technological changes that made Napoleonic warfare obsolete.
Sure Alexander the Great conquered more land in terms of size, but most of it was still occupied by only tribes or desert. .
The Roman historian Livy points out that exact observation. Alexander had a large, organized army with Bronze Age technology and was running over small villages, not organized into larger units, inhabited by farmers living a stone age lifestyle. Alexander's uncle, Alexander, invaded Italy in those same days and was soundly defeated by the Romans.
Now....who would win in a tag team match between Hannibal and Stonewall Jackson vs Genghis Khan and George Patton?
That's obvious: Jackson & Hannibal, because Patton would be forced by the politicians to tag Khan and not be allowed to finish up the fight early by himself.
That's obvious: Jackson & Hannibal, because Patton would be forced by the politicians to tag Khan and not be allowed to finish up the fight early by himself.
You think so? I was seeing a falling out between the hyper Christian Jackson and Hannibal over the latter's paganism
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
