They were both brilliant generals, both pulled off tactical wonders in their military careers, so if they were to meet on the field, who would win the day?
discuss
They were both brilliant generals, both pulled off tactical wonders in their military careers, so if they were to meet on the field, who would win the day?
discuss
Last edited by irontaino; October 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM.
Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude
A.B.A.P.
khalid was definitely the better general, but i don't think he ever commanded a very big army
They'd decide who was a better general in a a game of Halo.
Last edited by Kurtz; October 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM.
Really - why?khalid was definitely the better general
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
Other than lots of dead people, no idea.
Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v Zentai [2012] HCA 28 per Heydon J at [75]
Analysis should not be diverted by reflections upon the zeal with which the victors at the end of the Second World War punished the defeated for war crimes. The victors were animated by the ideals of the Atlantic Charter and of the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was about to peep over the eastern horizon. But first, they wanted a little hanging.
i'm not saying that alexander wasn't a great general, or else he wouldn't have reached india. but he wasn't as tested as khalid, and didn't fight many battles were the odds were overwhelmingly against him; furthermore he had with him heavy seasoned troops. on the other hand khalid ibn al-walid fought numerous battles against both the roman and persian armies (and at times combined armies), often being outnumbered and facing heavy, experienced troops (including shock cavalry).
there was absolutely nothing inevitable about the islamic conquest. if it wasn't for khalid islam would probably have never become anything more then a sect of chritianity practiced in some parts of central arabia
i see khalid ben alwalid
becuse he crushed the Parisians and the romans many times and fought as i remember more than 150 battle
and on the other hand how many empires did alexander fought aginest
but that don't mean that alexander wasn't a great general
fought numerous battles against
Khalid didn't face any truly formidable enemy. He faced two exhausted empires with little gifted generals to command their armies. The Persian empire, however, managed to restore itself after a series of degneration of government. Darius was quite a talented general.
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
They wouldn't have met because there were from different time frames. What is it with all these ridiculous alternative scenario's - Rome vs Medieval England, Rome vs. Northern Woodland Indians and now this? What is wrong with actually coming up with some more credible scenarios such as what if Khalid ibn al-Walid had suffered a reverse at Yarmuk for example? I think it is ok to compare aspects of leadership between the Alexander and Khalid and how they fought their campaigns, but to say suggest a scenario where they would've met on the battlefield is silly.
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
Alexander would convert to Islam and so would his Macedonians/Greeks.If Khalid ibn al-Walid and Alexander the Great met on the battlefield?
Alexander: 'Which one of you is in charge?'
Ibn Al-Walid: 'I am mushrikun.'
Alexander: 'I'm the son of this "Allah" character.'
Ibn Al-Walid: 'No you aren't.'
Alexander: 'I think I would know.'
Ibn Al-Walid: 'Silence Kafir!'
Alexander: 'Somatophylakes to me!'
Hephaestion: 'Alalalalalalalalalalala!' *stabs Al-Walid*
Ibn Al-Walid: 'Gahk, we share a warcry!' *dies*
Alexander: 'Is there no one else?!' *stoops to pick up Walid's sword*
Hephaestion: 'Alright you lot, start praying to the God-Emperor or else.'
*Muslims bowing*
Alexander: 'I demand a sacrifice...'
The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
The search for intelligent life continues...
If you rep me, please leave your username so I can rep back
Formerly known as Sarry. and My Political Profile!
This is the most realistic scenario possible so lets go with this one...except for the dying part. Lets say Alexander and the muslim guy met in the field after the exchange.
My vote goes for alexander because Ibn Ai-Walid only fights for a deity while Alexander believes he is one...
If you rep me, please leave your username so I can rep back
Formerly known as Sarry. and My Political Profile!
Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v Zentai [2012] HCA 28 per Heydon J at [75]
Analysis should not be diverted by reflections upon the zeal with which the victors at the end of the Second World War punished the defeated for war crimes. The victors were animated by the ideals of the Atlantic Charter and of the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was about to peep over the eastern horizon. But first, they wanted a little hanging.
Battle of Yarmouk?
Last edited by Morbius Sire; December 14, 2010 at 04:27 PM.
If you rep me, please leave your username so I can rep back
Formerly known as Sarry. and My Political Profile!