a roman alexander

[mattfriend0]

[MarcusTullius]

Looks like a good leader......but cant make the pic bigger :s

[mattfriend0]

oh sorry hes not a leader yet be he has just come of age and thats what i got stright away

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Psh...if he was Alexander he'd have lower management.

[mattfriend0]

yea but he is 16

[GreatOne]

Lower management?

Let me remind you management also counts when managing an empire, or units.Alexander knew how to handle things, so management is in place

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Lower management?

Let me remind you management also counts when managing an empire, or units.Alexander knew how to handle things, so management is in place

I disagree...he didn't know how to manage. He just took over an area, threw a satrap in the governmental hq, and went off to sack another place. In RTW it means city wealth and Alexander just gave the loot away, as was expected of a Macedonian king. But alas, I think a different approach was needed to keep the empire...

Imo, if Alexander was a good manager, he wouldn't have had a succession crisis after his death (he'd have taken a wife earlier) and he wouldn't have tried a governmental system of one-man rule when he had an empire to manage. For Macedon a monarchy is fine, but for a land so large no one was sure where it ended?

Phillip II though, now he was a good manager.

[GreatOne]

I was reffering to his management of troops in the battles.I'm sure that counts for something....

[Jingles]

I was reffering to his management of troops in the battles.I'm sure that counts for something....

Ya, I'm pretty sure that comes under the command skill in RTW.

Besides, not much use to argue over it I guess...seeing as how none of us actually met the guy. might be worth moving this thread to the Vestigia Vetustatis though, as its an interesting subject.

@Skan, I think maybe you're right. Historians nowadays tend to rationalise too much I think (not all of them of course), whereas some others deliberately try to be controversial, simply because it's becoming fashionable to flout political correctness.

edit: I read a book with paths of conquerers plotted on a map, and Alexander did indeed plan to conquer all the way to spain and back. Except he died. Bummer. Mithridates of Pontus actually planned to attack Rome by marching all the way around the black sea and attacking italy itself. Historians nowadays usually think this was mad and could never have been achieved. But then they might have said the same of Hannibal's march across the alps, had he died before achieving it.

[cherryfunk]

I disagree...he didn't know how to manage. He just took over an area, threw a satrap in the governmental hq, and went off to sack another place. In RTW it means city wealth and Alexander just gave the loot away, as was expected of a Macedonian king. But alas, I think a different approach was needed to keep the empire...

I disagree. His consolidation in Babylon after his return was actually quite far-sighted. His performance as a founder of cities has never been equaled, by any conquerer. And the way he combined his return voyage with naval exploration and the planning of trade routes suggested a king who fully understood the importance of trade and travel to bind together his empire. He was definitely thinking long term.

And you can hardly blame him for not preparing for his death at his age. By all rights he should have lived another twenty or thirty years, at least.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

I can't deny those points. However I wonder how many of those cities were originally garrisons to sate the locals which grew to cities.. the populace could claim Alexander founded it, and who would know the difference? It's kind of like how today every green-eyed person from Iran to Uighuristan claims direct descent from Alexander.

I'm half playing devil's advocate here..just read an interesting (and mostly convincing) book called [I]Alexander the Great Failure/I], where the author argues that for all his conquests, Alexander still didn't succeed because of what happened after his death. I thought it was rubbish until I read it, and now I half agree. The only real stretch to me was blaming the Galatian invasions on Alexander's lack of foresight... seems a bit unfair to begrudge a man for not campaigning hard enough in the barbarian north when the Persians were so ripe for an attack. Alexander, the author argues, was in it for personal glory, rather than to protect his people and kingdom.

At any rate, take a look at the book, even if you disagree it still covers the period following his death pretty darn well for a 'popular history' book.

This post took 25 minutes to write, I've gone and burnt my right hand pretty badly.

[dvk901]

Ouch!

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

personally, i tend to be skeptical of anything historical written in the last 50 years. political correctness and other such ideas have made the recent historical works a farce to keep from upsetting someone, offending someone, etc. this is especially so for anything written in the US. i've read some convincing books that say man is the devil incarnate. just because it is convincing doesn't mean that it really has any basis in fact. personally i think that Alexander was born and then they broke the mold. there is no question he is one of the greatest conquerors the world has ever seen. the fact he died young and without an heir was not his choice or fault. $h!+ happens, whether we like it or not. i think that Alexander could have very well changed the modern atlas if he hadnt died as young as he did and possible created an empire that would have destroyed a fledgling rome. not quite sure where we would be then, but that seems to be the course he set, even though he was unable to finish.

Skan

[Forsworn]

Well, look at how well Alexanderia turned out at the start of RTW! That was a city he founded himself that bore his name and it's pretty wealthy.

Those darn desert wanderers and their awesome lighthouse...

[cherryfunk]

I'm half playing devil's advocate here..just read an interesting (and mostly convincing) book called [i]Alexander the Great Failure/I], where the author argues that for all his conquests, Alexander still didn't succeed because of what happened after his death.

I think that's like blaming Lincoln for the failure of Reconstruction. You can't hold a man accountable for what happens after he dies, particularly when he thought he would have many more years to put a structure in place that would maintain his vision. Alexander was planning the circumvention of Arabia and the continued exploration of the East on his death; and I believe he had further plans to subdue Carthage and Italy. From his perspective, he was just getting started. To blame him for the subsequent collapse is a bit unfair. Indeed, the fact is that the Successors were actually remarkably stable and successful for many decades after his death. His Empire fractured, but it hardly collapsed.

[Caesar_1991]

Yeah but its good that he didnt destroy Rome though before they had a chance to create there world. I Agree with what most people have said. When your that young your not worrying about your succesion or heir your worrying about where to attack and pay for Money for troops


Ive had a six star General at 16 no joke or cheating...... but he died against Phyrrus... it was tragic

[GreatOne]

I had a Man of the Hour proposal in Vanilla, that was 18, was Military Genius, and a Superior Commander....... I rejected him ofcourse, as I was lacking governors at the time...... :

[Forsworn]

Speaking of a Roman Alexander... I believe if you want to accomplish that you would need to surpass the height of Roman Power during Trajan's reign as Emperor.