I just watched this, TO my personal Opinion, the factor that was the DUMBEST part of this show, is the special weapon for Alexander WAS THE FUCKING BALLISTA, and I looked, That's not a damned ballista, that's a SCORPION, Also ITS A DAMNED SIEGE WEAPON, NOT A 'combat' weapon, If anything they should of had his special weapon, be his Hand to Hand skill, Because in the example, I see SO many fuck ups where rather then -controlling- He messes up and gets kicked in the face, or arm cracked...
well most western forms of hand to hand combat are very inferior to others....
atilla was a very well known hand to hand fights and that was his specialty along with horse back combat im not sure about alexander in a fist fight but i would think the armor would still hinder him somewhat
atilla hun was a master tactition and a master swordsman and horsemenship, the fact u roman bitchez say he wasnt proves as fact u dont know what u r saying, he was literally an einstine of the days man thats how he crushed the romans, do a little research b4 u run your mouth, ill help u out a little war for the world 400ad's, maybe watch history channels rendition of what actually happened called atilla with gerard butler....
Alexander the Great had the most skill in battle he would always be the first to lead the charge, and this view of atila the hun being fat and tall is very wrong. Acording to world wide based historians he was actually short (dwarf soze almost) wide chest thin beard small eye's and not very strong at all. Alexander the Great was tall strongley built and swift like a eagle. Atila the hun was a coward who only killed unarmed peasent's. Alexander the Great would have used Atila as toilet paper.
come oooon !!! Alexander the G had been fighting against REAL warriors thousands of times , when everything that Attila had been doing was killing peasants and f*cking chickens !!! NO WAY he could kill AtG when he NEVER actually fought against real warriors.
Attila was a pussy he positioned himself in the middle of his army so he wouldnt get hurt look it up . Alexander made sure he was the first person to get into the action he wanted to be a famous warrior and a general he was undefeated in battle as a general and a warrior atilla lost to the romans at the battle of chalons. alexander had 8 recorded injuries but never was beaten in hand to hand. atilla had 0 recorded injuries and died of a nose bleed lmao alexander would so win period.
@Onix24687 Well making generals fight each other is totally retarded. Some weren't soldiers at all but really smart strategists, while others just went in and mostly won because they inspired the troops.
Oh and he wasn't a pussy, he was smart. What would have happened to alexander if he just died in his first battle ? No one would be talking about him at all.
@bertini18 You mean Alexander was not fighting? Yes he was a general/king but he was always in the first line of the battle... He was wounded a lot of times because of this... Try to read Arrianos or other historians of his time and you will learn about his bravery and his fighting skills also. Alexander and his horse Voukefalas always in front looking death face to face ..
@bertini18 are you serious? alexander the great was the first in line ready to battle, Alexander the great took on odd's most man would wet there pants thinking of. 35.000 Greeks vs 300.000 Persian's and he gave them a brutal taste of death. Atila the hun lost at Constinopoule lost to the Romans, he only won against tribes and unarmed peasents. And even then he hid behind his men so that he didnt get hurt. Alexander the Great is giving that title for a reason.
If Alexander wants to fight The Huns, he have to build a great wall like the Chinese did, or the Huns would simply use their superior mobility and lightning speed bypass Alexander's army, go straight to Alexander's cities burning, plundering, raping all the way. When Alex rushes back to save his cities, there is only smoldering ruins left. Alex's people would be running out of food and starve, not for a long time, then Alex's army will starve too
Watcha talking about? Alex in that video was wearing typical period Greek armou: helmet, muscle cuirass and greaves all of bronze. Some Roman generals later also wore this suit, bcoz they were trying to imitate the Greeks (the Macedonian also borrowed it from the Greeks of course). The Roman rank and file who actually fought in armour however preferred mail. So in a sense your statement is correct, but why you asked it in the first place is somewhat funny.
????? It's a typical Greek helmet, in fact the lion's head helmet is specifically associated with Alexander, dude. It's the same helmet worn by Alex in the latest movie.
@HaNsWiDjAjA you mean the lion's helm which upon looking at the coins and statues resembles more of a lion's skin rather than bronze, which is ever so much more likely considering that traditional greek helmets were more angular in nature and included a nose plate? and i wonder which civilisation started the more round fitted helmet with no noseplate ... also considering that his troops have helmets with moving cheekplates which is clearly not greek ...
Wow, I guess you're actually right, I've always thought that the Attic helmet originated in Greece (and it may have), but it's much more common in Italy, among the Etruscans, Samnites and Tarentines (did the Romans use it though?). Perhaps it evolved from the Chalcidian in Magna Graecia?
@bloomy2293 um that is more like greek armour and alexander the great conqured greece and many other countrys before moving to try to take over asaia. alexander had resources from every city he ruled
@XboxUltimateMarines8 he wasnt greek he was macedonian he got his education in greece from aristotle. he was a general in his fathers empire before he died. he became king when his father died and took over greece and others parts of europe
@XDAZNdude Look the Macedonia your thinking of is wrong. He came from the Greek macedonia. And he dont take over the Hellenic region. He was king, it was his. He was a commander in battle. Here let me quote "Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros o Mégasiii[›]), was a king of Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece". Do you see, just because King leonidise said he was Spartan did not mean he was not Greek. ATG came from a Greek state, thus being Greek. :)
i'm mixed with both greek/macedonian and hungarian, but... look at history. in many battles, alexander would lose a few hundred men vs the enemy losing hundreds of thousands. he's fought muuuch bigger armies (persian?) all of his short life. this would have been no different.
"... Darius, the persian king chased shamefully, he lost eighty-thousand man ... likewise the scythians kill Cyrus persian king and he thirty-thousand soldiers.. The scythians oneself --> Alexander the Great, son of II. Fulop (II. Philipposz) who conquer a lot of country, likewise routed shamefully.." - Gesta Hungarorum [Anonymus]
Thought so. Alexander defeated the Scythians. Just did some research. As I said before, Alexander owns the Huns.
By the way, horse archers really aren't that hard to fight if you know how to do so. You can get fast, light lancers to do the job, or another way. Too easy.
Prior to gunpowder, massed Horse Archers were some of the most feared foes; Why? Because they could dictate the terms of battle. The enemy is charging at you? Run away and shoot him. Still charging? Their cavalry has now been cut off, so you can surround, ambush and chop him up at your leisure. You now posses a complete advantage in mobility, and can shoot them at your leisure, at the same time destroying their morale. Mongols had 2nd largest land empire EVER. Wonder why?
We're not talking about a massive battle, we're talking about one on one battle. Also, you must not know this, but lancers were created that were made to ride down and destroy horse archers.
Field enough of those, and you've got that army licked. Another way to cut them down is to field foot archers who can shoot further and more accurately because of their more stable platform which is their feet and ground, and you've got that army licked again.
But if I have mobility, I can dictate terms, that's the whole point. Why on earth would I get into a fight against superior ranged troops if I can simply outmaneuver them? The Mongols possessed heavy cavalry, or "lancers" as you call them, themselves, who would be able to counter charge enemy horseman after drawing them out from support. The reason the Scythians were defeated is because they got bogged down in combat. The whole point of what I'm saying is that they don't commit
until they have successfully estranged the enemy army. Because the enemy doesn't possess the same level of flexibility, of its own accord there's not much it can do. They are entirely dependent upon commanders of these mounted armies to make a mistake. That is the main reason these armies become defeated, their own own mistakes in getting too close rather than the prowess of the enemy. They are entirely proactive, and the enemy is forced to become reactive, a disadvantage.
Alexander was the exception to the rule, to claim him as the norm is unreasonable. Darius couldn't defeat the Scythians, they simply wore him down and constantly feigned and retreated until he gave up and went home. Attila destroyed the Romans, they didn't have an answer to his tactics. Genghis Khan made an empire from China to Europe. All Mounted Armies. They weren't invincible, but they were the closest thing to it in their time, until the advent of new technology. Did they lose
@Strongholder123 But the Romans were defeated numerous times by Atilla because they were on the decline. They didn't have the same armour as they did during the Caesar or Trajan days. And didn't Aetius defeat Atilla? Infact so bad, that Attila was ready to kill himself? Didn't Aetius slow down Attila's invastion of Rome with a shadow force?
You are absolutely correct. At it's peak the Roman Empire was a formidable foe, and even as a shadow of it's former glory it did eventually defeat Atilla. However, the Hunnic forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains simply charged at the enemy and strove to defeat them in melee. It failed, and they broke and ran. By engaging in protracted combat they lost the benefits of maneuverability and ranged firepower. I suppose my arguments in this regard apply more so to the Mongols
In regards to the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, remeber that the Huns had actually been literally capturing a city when the reinforcements arrived, and this limited their options
In a theoretical context, wherein one side is possessed almost entirely of horse archers, there should be no real way for them to lose so they deploy and utilise their forces to their full effectiveness. Where the catch comes in is when they have incompetent commanders, miscommunication, enemy guile
and sheer dumb bad luck. The adage that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy is a good one. I guess the cusp of what I am trying to argue is that pre-blackpowder, a force possessed predominantly of horse archers had the greatest tactical potential to convert into power on the battlefield. Does this mean they always achieved this power? Definitely not, everything makes mistakes eventually. I think the Mongols are the closest example we have such utilisation, but even they
battles? Of course, by not utilising their distinctive advantage. Harass supply lines, conduct night raids, feign attack, conduct hit and runs, then slip away like smoke. Incredibly frustrating for the enemy, eat away at their numbers, and once they make a mistake, as they inevitably will as they want to come to grips with your force, turn and strike. The effect this has on morale is simply devastating, and well documented. In terms of heavily armored knights, Polish encounters
Against the Mongols, and the Crusaders against the Saracens, showed that if you use this advantage, you can stick them full of arrows, isolate them from the rest of the army and eliminate them. I do agree that massed archer fire was effective in a pitched battle against HA, but like I said before, why on earth would you engage them in pitched battle if you don't have to? In terms of the one vs one shown here- The same thing applies. Just shoot his horse -.- You're laughing
There is one final observation I'd like to make. After Alexander defeated the Scythians in pitched battle, he didn't actually invade their homeland. Why? For the exact reason i just said- The same thing would have happened to him that happened to Darius. Read Herodotus' account of the Scythians, it makes for some interesting viewing. He would have been chasing smoke, losing supplies and men the whole time.
This is idiotic. Alexander had a WHITE mane! Why are the fucking Americans continuing those historical inaccuracies?! HE'S NOT A FUCKING ROMAN! HE WAS GREEK.
And then these dumbasses want to say the simulation is accurate....morons.
@manoljo If Americans continue the so called historical inaccuracies why do you watch them, ever thought that you could be a moron? Just shut up and watch the video, troll.
uhhh for those of you who think that Alexander should have won.....well ur wrong, cuz attila's army was was twice the size of alexanders in numbers and strength, a man who controls an army of that caliber has to have some fighting prowess, attilla the hun pretty much fought every one and conquered much more than alexander ever did
@buddhamic13 not trying to start a fight but the main reason Alexander didn't go on to conquer more is because he caught malaria (or i think that's what it was anyways) and died an early death but its hard to tell who would have won truthfully being that Alexander may have had less men but he did have better tactics so no one really knows and this show just made a poor attempt to guess the out come.
He was from the geographic region of the modern country of Macedonia, but back in his times, it was an ethnically Greek place, rather than the Slavic one of today.
this would have been a good fair fight, but they made alexander look like a oush-over. sure, alexander was a military geniouse but Attila the hun was as notorious as alexander, theres a reason why he's in the record book. him and his men were BRUTAL and smart in combat, and alexander, he was the greatest greek general/captain in HISTORY. but people are being biased because its alexander the great versus a savage. well, the savage DEFINETLY would stand a chance to a captain. but this fight sucked
@eddieguererro46 yo one of alexanders men disapeared without attacking or being fought just like that look alexanders bow kills first dude then alexanders crossbow dude dies alexander kill the crosbow dude and atila wasnt doin anything at the time so alexanders 3rd guy just disapeared misteriously
@eddieguererro46 you do know this fight is just choreographed to show people what it look like so they get a little more enjoyment out of it to show who won when all the real fighting is done their computers?
Still if the this little biased show would have done the Ancient Hellenic Empire vs the Huns, then the spartans would have no problem. These fuckers are so stupid when it comes to acting the fight with their little computer. A Greek vs. a Mongol, hmmm... I thank da attiler der hun guy shud win dis batle, ya think so bob, yessir billy lets makey dis darn dang show.
You're all retards, this isn't bullshit... Maybe if you read something from your local library about both, instead of sitting on your biased ass on yahoo questions all day you'd realise this was a fair fight... Alexander the Great was an AMAZING commander, so was Atilla the Hun... Atilla was better in practically every way sorry, heart says Alexander, brain says atilla
This makes me laugh on the inside they had tugg of war on horses. i also love how well they try to act when every a non leader gets killed they all have the same voice.
Attila The Hun was a no brainer. He was far more ruthless and had a more primative mind. Where Alexander was thinking of strategy Attila was thinking KILL!
The problem is the Huns were so effective on horse and in archery they never needed to get in close. Of course they would win they had technology on their aide
@stealthwolf1 the huns were a bunch of horse archers. the macedonians were warriors who fought in formation. who do you think is more advanced? clearly the macedonians. the reason why they'd lose is cuz horse archers are best at completely making a mess of any formation. unfortunately, there were no countermeasures back then for horse archers
If u watch closely one of Alexander's soldiers disappears... starts off 3v3 then 3v2-Alexander, Hun's archer kills one soldier, 2v2, Alexander kills the archer, that should make 2v1 but then the rest is just Alexander and Hun, later while Alexander gets thrown off his horse he picks up the missing guys shield who is dead on the ground
@Knight0fBrittania hes name isnt Alexander III of Macedon ... Hes Name is Alexander the Great and if u still say that he was from macedonia ok he was but in Greek macedonia ! so he is Greek so simple !
@Knight0fBrittania My history idiot says that alexander the great was From Greek Macedonia so dont talk omg u say that he is macedonian and when i say macedonian i mean bulgarian or albanian etc.
u say he was macedonia because u want to !! hes greek whatever u say !!!
@plagentis Yes by Macedonian I do mean Greek Macedonia. But at the time of Alexanders Birth, Pella, where Alexander was born. WAS IN THE KINGDOM OF MACEDON.
No. I'm sorry, but that's not how that fight would have gone down at ALL. The fight would have been decided depending on whether Alexander could get into close combat with Attila. If he couldn't catch Attila on his horse, he's dead. PERIOD. Attila and his army would just ride around other armies and shoot them to death, they completely sucked at anything else (for the most part). If Alexander got close, Attila is toast. Alexander had heavy armor and was highly proficient in sword fighting
They blew it big time on this one. No way a bum who got his ass kicked by weakening Romans several times would defeat one of the deadliest most skilled Greek warriors ever, an expert in Pankration, educated by Aristotle, etc... Alexander would be kicking Attila head around 10 seconds into the battle because he would have decapitated him within 5 seconds of close combat. A Lasso, really. lmfao smh
Alexander fought armies that focused on mass mounted archers like Attila's army. Also Attila never fought any army with the same tactics or equipment as Alxande'rs so in a army vs army battle Attila would loose big time.
@Levon155 i disagree.both the spartans and samurais had a code of honor.if a spartan lost his shield,he lost his honor.spartans were born warriors.they were trained from birth.if you werent good,you died.they got that one right.but i will agree with you on alexander.he shoulda kicked atilla's ass.
This is similar to the Roman Centurion vs Rajang: Alexander was a general, and an amazing one at that, but HE didn't do most of the fighting. Attila loved the sight of blood shed and made himself engaged and was ruthless. He even had his loyal men rip prisoners limbs off for entertainment. Attila one and deserved it. Now if it was a group on group battle : I personally believe Alexander may have reigned. But one vs one: Attila
@01StevenCreed actully alexander was in almost every fight in fact he was in the fight first alot. he took sevral blows all around his body and still lived through them. attila couldnt even take down a empire that was divided and pretty much dead alexander took down one of the most powerful empires at the time.
@01StevenCreed Alexander always, in every single battle that he fought as teenager and a grown man, lead cavalary charges against the enemy, and he was always up front.
@XXXDENIZZZ lol Atillia's army fought the romans, if you look in the history records atillia the hun positioned himself in the middle of the army, because he thought that is where he would less likely to be in danger. He never engages into one on one battles. Unlike Alexander who was mostly the first one into battle with his army.
@XXXDENIZZZ NEVER lost a fight? What about the battle of the Catalaunian Plains were his army was destroyed by Aetius Flavius? Alexander was undefeated. He didn't lost a single battle.
First off Attila lost a major battle against a crumbling Roman Empire and Alexander never lost going against the Persian Empire at its height and also won bloody battles when his army came against the indians and seen elephants for the first time. And they talked about how mobile Attila was but Alexander won most of his battles on the fly with quick strategic thinking and cavalry charges like Attila. There is no way on Earth Attila would have beat ALEXANDER THE GREAT
it seems like alexander's protrusive helmet would have posed more of a problem in battle than a use, mostly because if you disarmed him, you could take off his helmet in one swing, and possibly cause damage to the side of his head in doing so. But i know you trolls are going to hit this comment hard, so just be nice, if that's even possible
I'm torn i love Attila and want to like this on the other hand fuck deadliest warrior
RazlerofEsthar 1 week ago
Press 8 repeatedly
lmao
REDZION23 2 weeks ago
I just watched this, TO my personal Opinion, the factor that was the DUMBEST part of this show, is the special weapon for Alexander WAS THE FUCKING BALLISTA, and I looked, That's not a damned ballista, that's a SCORPION, Also ITS A DAMNED SIEGE WEAPON, NOT A 'combat' weapon, If anything they should of had his special weapon, be his Hand to Hand skill, Because in the example, I see SO many fuck ups where rather then -controlling- He messes up and gets kicked in the face, or arm cracked...
Terrorclaw 2 weeks ago
@Terrorclaw
well most western forms of hand to hand combat are very inferior to others....
atilla was a very well known hand to hand fights and that was his specialty along with horse back combat im not sure about alexander in a fist fight but i would think the armor would still hinder him somewhat
MastuTHEIF 2 weeks ago
bull shit
armyboybrodie 3 weeks ago
This is bullshit... He killed a Power Ranger. No one can do that.
Yahiko25 3 weeks ago
@Yahiko25 Except a Kamen Rider,or another Ranger >_>
REDZION23 2 weeks ago
Mongols are the greatest of warriors and the true conquerors of Asia and all it's riches!
Noslen1488 3 weeks ago
FUcking ridiculous!
ZombieSoldier224 4 weeks ago
atilla hun was a master tactition and a master swordsman and horsemenship, the fact u roman bitchez say he wasnt proves as fact u dont know what u r saying, he was literally an einstine of the days man thats how he crushed the romans, do a little research b4 u run your mouth, ill help u out a little war for the world 400ad's, maybe watch history channels rendition of what actually happened called atilla with gerard butler....
gizzy2929 1 month ago
thats right roman bitches u dont fuck with the horde praise atilla
gizzy2929 1 month ago
Attila was a lot stronger than Alexander. Alexander is just a good tactician.
dakulol 1 month ago
Attila beat Alexander?...
DrBananaKing7000 1 month ago
hit 3 for a gunshot and a screaming guy running away.
Sivad41 1 month ago
Horseshit
amadshadow 1 month ago
Alexander the Great had the most skill in battle he would always be the first to lead the charge, and this view of atila the hun being fat and tall is very wrong. Acording to world wide based historians he was actually short (dwarf soze almost) wide chest thin beard small eye's and not very strong at all. Alexander the Great was tall strongley built and swift like a eagle. Atila the hun was a coward who only killed unarmed peasent's. Alexander the Great would have used Atila as toilet paper.
XboxUltimateMarines8 1 month ago
come oooon !!! Alexander the G had been fighting against REAL warriors thousands of times , when everything that Attila had been doing was killing peasants and f*cking chickens !!! NO WAY he could kill AtG when he NEVER actually fought against real warriors.
AnGrYGrEeKGuY 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATILA WAS ONE CANIBAL GERMAN . THE ALEXANDER THE GREAT IS GREEK SEMI-GOD. THIS IS SAYS ALL
unfukkkmee 2 months ago
Attila was a pussy he positioned himself in the middle of his army so he wouldnt get hurt look it up . Alexander made sure he was the first person to get into the action he wanted to be a famous warrior and a general he was undefeated in battle as a general and a warrior atilla lost to the romans at the battle of chalons. alexander had 8 recorded injuries but never was beaten in hand to hand. atilla had 0 recorded injuries and died of a nose bleed lmao alexander would so win period.
Onix24687 2 months ago
@Onix24687 Well making generals fight each other is totally retarded. Some weren't soldiers at all but really smart strategists, while others just went in and mostly won because they inspired the troops.
Oh and he wasn't a pussy, he was smart. What would have happened to alexander if he just died in his first battle ? No one would be talking about him at all.
ivanlagrossemoule 2 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule Attila was not a good warrior, nor a good strategist...
KurtAngle89 1 month ago
@KurtAngle89 I never said he was.
ivanlagrossemoule 1 month ago
in the description you have wrong my friend... Alexander the Great the Roman warrior??? He was Greek... Fix it please ...
NikosLiakos1 2 months ago
A trained warrior who was usually the first to charge into enemy lines or a coward who never fought in battle.
GrrrIamMad 2 months ago
This is science fiction...totaly fake !! Alexander the Great Greek Macedonian King would smash his neck in a few moments.
NikosLiakos1 2 months ago
@NikosLiakos1 atila actually fought in battle alexander was a general
bertini18 2 months ago
@bertini18 You mean Alexander was not fighting? Yes he was a general/king but he was always in the first line of the battle... He was wounded a lot of times because of this... Try to read Arrianos or other historians of his time and you will learn about his bravery and his fighting skills also. Alexander and his horse Voukefalas always in front looking death face to face ..
NikosLiakos1 2 months ago
@bertini18 are you serious? alexander the great was the first in line ready to battle, Alexander the great took on odd's most man would wet there pants thinking of. 35.000 Greeks vs 300.000 Persian's and he gave them a brutal taste of death. Atila the hun lost at Constinopoule lost to the Romans, he only won against tribes and unarmed peasents. And even then he hid behind his men so that he didnt get hurt. Alexander the Great is giving that title for a reason.
XboxUltimateMarines8 1 month ago
@NikosLiakos1 Thank you. That is right.
XboxUltimateMarines8 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Alexander wants to fight The Huns, he have to build a great wall like the Chinese did, or the Huns would simply use their superior mobility and lightning speed bypass Alexander's army, go straight to Alexander's cities burning, plundering, raping all the way. When Alex rushes back to save his cities, there is only smoldering ruins left. Alex's people would be running out of food and starve, not for a long time, then Alex's army will starve too
8917060 2 months ago
It would be pretty good if We Saw Lu Bu fight someone lol
jacksta246 3 months ago
that's bull right there i saw alexander go down the hill go with an acher and sowrd's man what did the guy with the sowrd just magicley die?
NapoleonsFinestClan 3 months ago
What I would like to know is why Alexander (a MACEDONIAN) is wearing armour suited for that of a ROMAN.
bloomy2293 4 months ago
@bloomy2293
Watcha talking about? Alex in that video was wearing typical period Greek armou: helmet, muscle cuirass and greaves all of bronze. Some Roman generals later also wore this suit, bcoz they were trying to imitate the Greeks (the Macedonian also borrowed it from the Greeks of course). The Roman rank and file who actually fought in armour however preferred mail. So in a sense your statement is correct, but why you asked it in the first place is somewhat funny.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA look at the helm.
bloomy2293 4 months ago
@bloomy2293
????? It's a typical Greek helmet, in fact the lion's head helmet is specifically associated with Alexander, dude. It's the same helmet worn by Alex in the latest movie.
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA you mean the lion's helm which upon looking at the coins and statues resembles more of a lion's skin rather than bronze, which is ever so much more likely considering that traditional greek helmets were more angular in nature and included a nose plate? and i wonder which civilisation started the more round fitted helmet with no noseplate ... also considering that his troops have helmets with moving cheekplates which is clearly not greek ...
bloomy2293 4 months ago
@bloomy2293
Wow, I guess you're actually right, I've always thought that the Attic helmet originated in Greece (and it may have), but it's much more common in Italy, among the Etruscans, Samnites and Tarentines (did the Romans use it though?). Perhaps it evolved from the Chalcidian in Magna Graecia?
HaNsWiDjAjA 4 months ago
@bloomy2293 The lion on his helmet represents that he is descended of Hercules by his mother blood..
NikosLiakos1 2 months ago
@bloomy2293 um that is more like greek armour and alexander the great conqured greece and many other countrys before moving to try to take over asaia. alexander had resources from every city he ruled
XDAZNdude 3 months ago
@XDAZNdude Alexander the Great never conqured Greece you fool, he was Greek. How stupid can you be, he was known as the hellenic king.
XboxUltimateMarines8 1 month ago
@XboxUltimateMarines8 he wasnt greek he was macedonian he got his education in greece from aristotle. he was a general in his fathers empire before he died. he became king when his father died and took over greece and others parts of europe
XDAZNdude 1 month ago
@XDAZNdude Look the Macedonia your thinking of is wrong. He came from the Greek macedonia. And he dont take over the Hellenic region. He was king, it was his. He was a commander in battle. Here let me quote "Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros o Mégasiii[›]), was a king of Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece". Do you see, just because King leonidise said he was Spartan did not mean he was not Greek. ATG came from a Greek state, thus being Greek. :)
XboxUltimateMarines8 1 month ago
C'mon a F*CKING Ballista against an axe?
Alexander was the greatest millitary mind ever, he would not bring a catapult into a 5 on 5 battle!
Stupid, should have won!
skibbi99 4 months ago
attlia the hun wins
and right thr4ew the neck slowly
MrBda241 4 months ago
I did not know that Alexander the Great is a Power Ranger. Now I know this is bullshit because no one can fuck a power ranger.
Yahiko25 4 months ago
@Yahiko25 Damn straught. And one of the cronies he fights in anearlier clip is Eric, the Quantum ranger from the same season
MadameChristie 4 months ago
@MadameChristie Is this Deadliest Warriors or Power Rangers: Time Force Ancient Times?
Yahiko25 4 months ago
@Yahiko25 lol. No idea. I guess thye just needed work after the finished saving the world from mutants from the future...
MadameChristie 4 months ago
the actor who played alexander the great was also the red ranger on power rangers time force
nkfkdkdjk 5 months ago
you make me think of the smell of moldy chesse, plus stale bacon no onions pleas
muzjiks77 5 months ago
I think we can all agree on this one, bullshit
StewieACDC 5 months ago
@StewieACDC
Nuff said.
Eskara0 5 months ago
DAMMIT ALL THE PEOPLE I WANT TO WIN LOSE
HeartlessJay 5 months ago
i'm mixed with both greek/macedonian and hungarian, but... look at history. in many battles, alexander would lose a few hundred men vs the enemy losing hundreds of thousands. he's fought muuuch bigger armies (persian?) all of his short life. this would have been no different.
secutorclaudius 5 months ago
2 words :D BULL SHIT
SadistSerpent 5 months ago
This is sacrilegious.
menacingshadows 5 months ago
Comment removed
menacingshadows 5 months ago
oh cmon, alexander was a better fighter than that mongol
Heracleithon 5 months ago
@Heracleithon why does everyone call Attila a Mongol, HES A HUN for gods sake thats why hes called Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan is a Mongol
Masternecron247 5 months ago
@Masternecron247 huns were a mongolic people
Heracleithon 5 months ago
only reason why they let alexander the great win cause he was a red ranger...
TheWrestlingfan90 5 months ago
too much physical combat whereas it should be weapons. why don't we see the killing power in the fight as we see in the weapons testing??
jacksquat31 5 months ago
/watch?v=v259QuZFXw0&feature=related
and
/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU&feature=related
Some Hun(garian) traditionalist warrior.
What do you think, how many chance Alexander in 1v1 with Attila ?
TemplarHUN 6 months ago
This show is a joke.
Attila kill alexander before he riding from the hill.. with a bow. Huns the best archers and horseman in the history.
----
Attila is a hungarian name. In Hungary lives a lots of men wear name Attila. :)
TemplarHUN 6 months ago
@TemplarHUN
Alexander fought AND WON against the notoriously difficult steppe horse-archers of Scythia and the like. This is over, Alexander wins.
EagleOneoOne 6 months ago
@EagleOneoOne LoL!
"... Darius, the persian king chased shamefully, he lost eighty-thousand man ... likewise the scythians kill Cyrus persian king and he thirty-thousand soldiers.. The scythians oneself --> Alexander the Great, son of II. Fulop (II. Philipposz) who conquer a lot of country, likewise routed shamefully.." - Gesta Hungarorum [Anonymus]
TemplarHUN 6 months ago
@TemplarHUN
Hmmmm...Where did you get this passage? I'm not certain whether to believe this or not.
EagleOneoOne 5 months ago
@TemplarHUN
Thought so. Alexander defeated the Scythians. Just did some research. As I said before, Alexander owns the Huns.
By the way, horse archers really aren't that hard to fight if you know how to do so. You can get fast, light lancers to do the job, or another way. Too easy.
EagleOneoOne 5 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
Prior to gunpowder, massed Horse Archers were some of the most feared foes; Why? Because they could dictate the terms of battle. The enemy is charging at you? Run away and shoot him. Still charging? Their cavalry has now been cut off, so you can surround, ambush and chop him up at your leisure. You now posses a complete advantage in mobility, and can shoot them at your leisure, at the same time destroying their morale. Mongols had 2nd largest land empire EVER. Wonder why?
Strongholder123 4 months ago
@Strongholder123
We're not talking about a massive battle, we're talking about one on one battle. Also, you must not know this, but lancers were created that were made to ride down and destroy horse archers.
Field enough of those, and you've got that army licked. Another way to cut them down is to field foot archers who can shoot further and more accurately because of their more stable platform which is their feet and ground, and you've got that army licked again.
EagleOneoOne 4 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
But if I have mobility, I can dictate terms, that's the whole point. Why on earth would I get into a fight against superior ranged troops if I can simply outmaneuver them? The Mongols possessed heavy cavalry, or "lancers" as you call them, themselves, who would be able to counter charge enemy horseman after drawing them out from support. The reason the Scythians were defeated is because they got bogged down in combat. The whole point of what I'm saying is that they don't commit
Strongholder123 4 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
until they have successfully estranged the enemy army. Because the enemy doesn't possess the same level of flexibility, of its own accord there's not much it can do. They are entirely dependent upon commanders of these mounted armies to make a mistake. That is the main reason these armies become defeated, their own own mistakes in getting too close rather than the prowess of the enemy. They are entirely proactive, and the enemy is forced to become reactive, a disadvantage.
Strongholder123 4 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
Alexander was the exception to the rule, to claim him as the norm is unreasonable. Darius couldn't defeat the Scythians, they simply wore him down and constantly feigned and retreated until he gave up and went home. Attila destroyed the Romans, they didn't have an answer to his tactics. Genghis Khan made an empire from China to Europe. All Mounted Armies. They weren't invincible, but they were the closest thing to it in their time, until the advent of new technology. Did they lose
Strongholder123 4 months ago
@Strongholder123 But the Romans were defeated numerous times by Atilla because they were on the decline. They didn't have the same armour as they did during the Caesar or Trajan days. And didn't Aetius defeat Atilla? Infact so bad, that Attila was ready to kill himself? Didn't Aetius slow down Attila's invastion of Rome with a shadow force?
HarjSinghDF 2 months ago
@HarjSinghDF
You are absolutely correct. At it's peak the Roman Empire was a formidable foe, and even as a shadow of it's former glory it did eventually defeat Atilla. However, the Hunnic forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains simply charged at the enemy and strove to defeat them in melee. It failed, and they broke and ran. By engaging in protracted combat they lost the benefits of maneuverability and ranged firepower. I suppose my arguments in this regard apply more so to the Mongols
Strongholder123 2 months ago
@HarjSinghDF
In regards to the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, remeber that the Huns had actually been literally capturing a city when the reinforcements arrived, and this limited their options
In a theoretical context, wherein one side is possessed almost entirely of horse archers, there should be no real way for them to lose so they deploy and utilise their forces to their full effectiveness. Where the catch comes in is when they have incompetent commanders, miscommunication, enemy guile
Strongholder123 2 months ago
@HarjSinghDF
and sheer dumb bad luck. The adage that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy is a good one. I guess the cusp of what I am trying to argue is that pre-blackpowder, a force possessed predominantly of horse archers had the greatest tactical potential to convert into power on the battlefield. Does this mean they always achieved this power? Definitely not, everything makes mistakes eventually. I think the Mongols are the closest example we have such utilisation, but even they
Strongholder123 2 months ago
@HarjSinghDF
lost a couple of battles.
Thank you very much for your input, it's always wonderful to find knowledgeable people and have a discussion about history .
Strongholder123 2 months ago
@Strongholder123 Every time Genghis lost he found a way to turn it to his advantage. He only cared about the war, not the battle.
GrrrIamMad 2 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
battles? Of course, by not utilising their distinctive advantage. Harass supply lines, conduct night raids, feign attack, conduct hit and runs, then slip away like smoke. Incredibly frustrating for the enemy, eat away at their numbers, and once they make a mistake, as they inevitably will as they want to come to grips with your force, turn and strike. The effect this has on morale is simply devastating, and well documented. In terms of heavily armored knights, Polish encounters
Strongholder123 4 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
Against the Mongols, and the Crusaders against the Saracens, showed that if you use this advantage, you can stick them full of arrows, isolate them from the rest of the army and eliminate them. I do agree that massed archer fire was effective in a pitched battle against HA, but like I said before, why on earth would you engage them in pitched battle if you don't have to? In terms of the one vs one shown here- The same thing applies. Just shoot his horse -.- You're laughing
Strongholder123 4 months ago
@EagleOneoOne
There is one final observation I'd like to make. After Alexander defeated the Scythians in pitched battle, he didn't actually invade their homeland. Why? For the exact reason i just said- The same thing would have happened to him that happened to Darius. Read Herodotus' account of the Scythians, it makes for some interesting viewing. He would have been chasing smoke, losing supplies and men the whole time.
Strongholder123 4 months ago
like this if u noticed that there is still 1 macedonian left...1 did not die. so alexander should have one.
theflameboy444 6 months ago
This is idiotic. Alexander had a WHITE mane! Why are the fucking Americans continuing those historical inaccuracies?! HE'S NOT A FUCKING ROMAN! HE WAS GREEK.
And then these dumbasses want to say the simulation is accurate....morons.
manoljo 6 months ago
@manoljo If Americans continue the so called historical inaccuracies why do you watch them, ever thought that you could be a moron? Just shut up and watch the video, troll.
Belarux 6 months ago
Alexander should have won because he is the red Time Force ranger.
Hunter1253 6 months ago
knight0brittania i respect you
sickkilla90 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
actually if alexander was a spartan that is the most pathetic excuse for a spartan shield ive ever seen
coolfreak2000 6 months ago
actually if alexander was a spartan that is the most pathetic excuse for a shield ive ever seen
coolfreak2000 6 months ago
@coolfreak2000 Its the shield of the Macedonian Pikeman. However Alexander was on horse, they didn't use it...
Spartiatai300 6 months ago
ALEXANDER ACTUALLY WON BECAUSE DURING THE VIDEO ONE OF HIS MEN DISAPEARED
THEdayTHESUNdontRISE 6 months ago
@THEdayTHESUNdontRISE Turncoat?
DrownedInKittyPool 6 months ago
@DrownedInKittyPool turncoat?????
THEdayTHESUNdontRISE 6 months ago
i think stragety wise..... alexander of macedonia. but hand to hand badass melee combat... attila. and that what happened.
jeezusmayne 6 months ago
Alexander The Great = Tactics/Balance
Attila The Hun = Power/Brute force.
ronL93 6 months ago
i knew attila would win he was a badass who made no exceptions.
Mst3kfanatic1 6 months ago
Very good fight. Very interesting too.
shinbooks 6 months ago
the only reason I like alexander more is becouse of Iron Maiden so...
Ace1Eclipse 6 months ago
uhhh for those of you who think that Alexander should have won.....well ur wrong, cuz attila's army was was twice the size of alexanders in numbers and strength, a man who controls an army of that caliber has to have some fighting prowess, attilla the hun pretty much fought every one and conquered much more than alexander ever did
buddhamic13 6 months ago
@buddhamic13 not trying to start a fight but the main reason Alexander didn't go on to conquer more is because he caught malaria (or i think that's what it was anyways) and died an early death but its hard to tell who would have won truthfully being that Alexander may have had less men but he did have better tactics so no one really knows and this show just made a poor attempt to guess the out come.
TheRainbow750 6 months ago
Alexander should have won this
MrCoyoteStarkk 6 months ago
Um.. I'm seeing a lot of people calling Alexander the Great a very good Greek general/captain.. wasn't he from Macedonia?
Hamsterloki 6 months ago
@Hamsterloki
He was from the geographic region of the modern country of Macedonia, but back in his times, it was an ethnically Greek place, rather than the Slavic one of today.
cheeseofglass 6 months ago
@anarchyindauk1 i know! wut was with that guy his crossbow not loaded!!!
proSk8boarderboy 6 months ago
this would have been a good fair fight, but they made alexander look like a oush-over. sure, alexander was a military geniouse but Attila the hun was as notorious as alexander, theres a reason why he's in the record book. him and his men were BRUTAL and smart in combat, and alexander, he was the greatest greek general/captain in HISTORY. but people are being biased because its alexander the great versus a savage. well, the savage DEFINETLY would stand a chance to a captain. but this fight sucked
eddieguererro46 6 months ago 10
@eddieguererro46 of course atilla was a savage, thats what makes him the deadliest warrior
chruiz42 6 months ago
@eddieguererro46 yo one of alexanders men disapeared without attacking or being fought just like that look alexanders bow kills first dude then alexanders crossbow dude dies alexander kill the crosbow dude and atila wasnt doin anything at the time so alexanders 3rd guy just disapeared misteriously
THEdayTHESUNdontRISE 6 months ago
@eddieguererro46 you do know this fight is just choreographed to show people what it look like so they get a little more enjoyment out of it to show who won when all the real fighting is done their computers?
Vlaxerman343 5 months ago
@Vlaxerman343 yea, i know. but they could've AT LEAST put more effort into itt. :/
eddieguererro46 5 months ago
@eddieguererro46 or they couldn't of even made this match up at all, why couldn't they put him up against sun tzu or Hannibal?
Vlaxerman343 5 months ago
Still if the this little biased show would have done the Ancient Hellenic Empire vs the Huns, then the spartans would have no problem. These fuckers are so stupid when it comes to acting the fight with their little computer. A Greek vs. a Mongol, hmmm... I thank da attiler der hun guy shud win dis batle, ya think so bob, yessir billy lets makey dis darn dang show.
Thejeter5770 6 months ago
i not happy with the results but it was still a good fight
redcyborgninja 6 months ago
You're all retards, this isn't bullshit... Maybe if you read something from your local library about both, instead of sitting on your biased ass on yahoo questions all day you'd realise this was a fair fight... Alexander the Great was an AMAZING commander, so was Atilla the Hun... Atilla was better in practically every way sorry, heart says Alexander, brain says atilla
itachinorman 6 months ago
@itachinorman
I feel the same way. Both were terrifying to face, but Atilla had the edge.
Digitizeddragon23 6 months ago
This makes me laugh on the inside they had tugg of war on horses. i also love how well they try to act when every a non leader gets killed they all have the same voice.
thedictatorfan 6 months ago
This makes me laugh on the inside they had tugg of war on horses.
thedictatorfan 6 months ago
Alexander is way better then Attila
holyring11 6 months ago
Attila The Hun was a no brainer. He was far more ruthless and had a more primative mind. Where Alexander was thinking of strategy Attila was thinking KILL!
phantumgrey 6 months ago
They need to completely re-do this one!
codeyzee 7 months ago
I'm a descendant of Alexander, and this is complete, utter bullshit.
AIexUchiha 7 months ago
lol it sounds like he says FOR NANINAAAAA
ToxicRadition 7 months ago
I wanna see Attila fight William Wallace
Lvl60Slayer 7 months ago
The problem is the Huns were so effective on horse and in archery they never needed to get in close. Of course they would win they had technology on their aide
stealthwolf1 7 months ago
@stealthwolf1 the huns were a bunch of horse archers. the macedonians were warriors who fought in formation. who do you think is more advanced? clearly the macedonians. the reason why they'd lose is cuz horse archers are best at completely making a mess of any formation. unfortunately, there were no countermeasures back then for horse archers
ungougedeyes552 7 months ago
If u watch closely one of Alexander's soldiers disappears... starts off 3v3 then 3v2-Alexander, Hun's archer kills one soldier, 2v2, Alexander kills the archer, that should make 2v1 but then the rest is just Alexander and Hun, later while Alexander gets thrown off his horse he picks up the missing guys shield who is dead on the ground
TheHeyman81 7 months ago
@TheHeyman81 thats why I think Alexander would have actually one since he still had a soldier who didn't even die and just was ignored.
FinalFrontier321 7 months ago
as if the sword would be right beside attilla the hun lol
ElvenGloryClan 7 months ago
I like in your description how you say Alexander was roman. HE WAS MACEDONIAN YOU FOOL.
Knight0fBrittania 7 months ago 28
@Knight0fBrittania srry gosh! man ppl are real fuckin assholes these dayz
coolfreak2000 6 months ago
maybe we arent professional like u but really rub it in fag
coolfreak2000 6 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania Macedonian Greek
Protesilaos 5 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania he was from greece :P
plagentis 4 months ago
@plagentis Why's he called Alexander III of Macedon then??? Exactly, he's Macedonian.
Knight0fBrittania 4 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania he was greek omg !! hes name is Alexander the Great not a macedonian go to study history !
plagentis 4 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania hes name isnt Alexander III of Macedon ... Hes Name is Alexander the Great and if u still say that he was from macedonia ok he was but in Greek macedonia ! so he is Greek so simple !
plagentis 4 months ago
@plagentis No he was born Alexander III of Macedon. He's commonly known as Alexander The Great. Learn your history.
Knight0fBrittania 4 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania My history idiot says that alexander the great was From Greek Macedonia so dont talk omg u say that he is macedonian and when i say macedonian i mean bulgarian or albanian etc.
u say he was macedonia because u want to !! hes greek whatever u say !!!
plagentis 4 months ago
@plagentis Yes by Macedonian I do mean Greek Macedonia. But at the time of Alexanders Birth, Pella, where Alexander was born. WAS IN THE KINGDOM OF MACEDON.
Knight0fBrittania 4 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania ok if u mean he is greek ... ok !
plagentis 4 months ago
@plagentis Not Greek. But Macedonian Greek.
Knight0fBrittania 4 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania Greek.... from greek macedonia :P
plagentis 4 months ago
@Knight0fBrittania He came from the Greek macedonia which is still Greek, he did not come from the Macedonia republic. He is Greek.
XboxUltimateMarines8 1 month ago
No. I'm sorry, but that's not how that fight would have gone down at ALL. The fight would have been decided depending on whether Alexander could get into close combat with Attila. If he couldn't catch Attila on his horse, he's dead. PERIOD. Attila and his army would just ride around other armies and shoot them to death, they completely sucked at anything else (for the most part). If Alexander got close, Attila is toast. Alexander had heavy armor and was highly proficient in sword fighting
RomanSoldier13 7 months ago
OMG, Attila killed a Power Ranger. Alexander should have morphed.
For the people who did not get it, Alexander is played by Jason Faunt aka the Red Time Force Power Ranger.
Yahiko25 7 months ago
This was the "politically correct" victory result... well, what a bunch of bullshit.
Alexander the Great would have routed these barbarians and had Atilla's head on a platter back on its way to Macedonia in no time.
topjimmy72 7 months ago
They blew it big time on this one. No way a bum who got his ass kicked by weakening Romans several times would defeat one of the deadliest most skilled Greek warriors ever, an expert in Pankration, educated by Aristotle, etc... Alexander would be kicking Attila head around 10 seconds into the battle because he would have decapitated him within 5 seconds of close combat. A Lasso, really. lmfao smh
DownloadDoctor1 7 months ago
@DownloadDoctor1 Alexander was a warrior king. Atilla was not. Alexander would of creamed Atilla.
Knight0fBrittania 7 months ago
Alexander fought armies that focused on mass mounted archers like Attila's army. Also Attila never fought any army with the same tactics or equipment as Alxande'rs so in a army vs army battle Attila would loose big time.
1v1 though it is anyone's guess.
1169Timothy 7 months ago
Alexzander worked better in groups were attila or the huns were well capable of fighting alone
stickleguitar 7 months ago
impossible,attila relied on his archers,alexander was great at everything.attila shoulda been in the ground in 3 seconds.
MeTaLdUdE02 7 months ago
Alexander should have won kind of how samurai should have won against spartan
Levon155 7 months ago
@Levon155 i disagree.both the spartans and samurais had a code of honor.if a spartan lost his shield,he lost his honor.spartans were born warriors.they were trained from birth.if you werent good,you died.they got that one right.but i will agree with you on alexander.he shoulda kicked atilla's ass.
MeTaLdUdE02 7 months ago
this is bull...alexander was a warrior king and Attila might have died of a NOSE BLEED on his WEDDING NIGHT
MrTrazed 7 months ago
@XXXDENIZZZ Attila did lost a fight u dickhead.He lost a battle to the romans at the battle of chalons.see for yourself
Blasting987 7 months ago
AL OF THESE SHOWS ARE SO OFF BY A MILE!
AJ619Stupid 7 months ago
ALL OF THESE SHOWS ARE INACCURATE AS FUCK MAN!
AJ619Stupid 7 months ago
This is similar to the Roman Centurion vs Rajang: Alexander was a general, and an amazing one at that, but HE didn't do most of the fighting. Attila loved the sight of blood shed and made himself engaged and was ruthless. He even had his loyal men rip prisoners limbs off for entertainment. Attila one and deserved it. Now if it was a group on group battle : I personally believe Alexander may have reigned. But one vs one: Attila
01StevenCreed 7 months ago
@01StevenCreed actully alexander was in almost every fight in fact he was in the fight first alot. he took sevral blows all around his body and still lived through them. attila couldnt even take down a empire that was divided and pretty much dead alexander took down one of the most powerful empires at the time.
ivantheterrible60 7 months ago
@01StevenCreed Alexander always, in every single battle that he fought as teenager and a grown man, lead cavalary charges against the enemy, and he was always up front.
Atreas40000 7 months ago
Alexander and fought the Persians ,which had many horse archers like Attila.How did he lost???!!!
Blasting987 7 months ago
@Blasting987 Atila fought the entire roman army and he never lost a fight just died poisoned the huns were great warriors
XXXDENIZZZ 7 months ago
@XXXDENIZZZ lol Atillia's army fought the romans, if you look in the history records atillia the hun positioned himself in the middle of the army, because he thought that is where he would less likely to be in danger. He never engages into one on one battles. Unlike Alexander who was mostly the first one into battle with his army.
MrGammaberries 7 months ago
@XXXDENIZZZ NEVER lost a fight? What about the battle of the Catalaunian Plains were his army was destroyed by Aetius Flavius? Alexander was undefeated. He didn't lost a single battle.
Atreas40000 7 months ago
in alexanders time they did not have crossbow it wwas invented at the late antinquity or early medieval times
D3ltaH3adSh0tz1997 7 months ago
First off Attila lost a major battle against a crumbling Roman Empire and Alexander never lost going against the Persian Empire at its height and also won bloody battles when his army came against the indians and seen elephants for the first time. And they talked about how mobile Attila was but Alexander won most of his battles on the fly with quick strategic thinking and cavalry charges like Attila. There is no way on Earth Attila would have beat ALEXANDER THE GREAT
KnightsTemplar15 7 months ago
it seems like alexander's protrusive helmet would have posed more of a problem in battle than a use, mostly because if you disarmed him, you could take off his helmet in one swing, and possibly cause damage to the side of his head in doing so. But i know you trolls are going to hit this comment hard, so just be nice, if that's even possible
SuperMrtallguy 7 months ago
This is absoultly ridiculous Alexander The Great Is A Great Probably the most strong and Intelligant warrior of all time wtf people
xanmman1 7 months ago
@xanmman1 NO, Leonidas was! lol
xxDOCxOPSxx 7 months ago