Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
@uzickismrad lmao, you'd be better off finding an apartment complex. I don't think you'd get along very well with me to be honest... not to mention I have no clue who you are.
@Alexandros1294 Well, you will meet us when we come there... We are very very good boys. Next year you can come to our place in Serbia... Ofc, we will find jobs in USA so you don't have to pay weed all by yourself. What do you say? For the second time, where're you from? Please tell me that you're from Dixie...
@Alexandros1294 That's great man. I was just testin you, i don't wanna live with a junkie ofc.. We don't smoke weed too. You passed the exam. Congratulations.. Relax, we're not terrorist. Send me you addrres in inbox, please..
@Alexandros1294 Your not telling us where we live? We have ways and means.....and you will give us shelter...we are good, hardworking serbsky boys. Please tell us from wich state are you from
@uzickismrad Actually no. Alexander's success rate was 100% .... It doesn't get better than that. Hannibal lost when he met someone just as good as he was. Alexander didn't.
@Alexandros1294 I see that you don't know much about Hannibal. He was alone, no one provided army for him (like Philip did for Alexander). Alexander had well educated generals around him and when Hannibal asked Carthage for help they said "No" . If they helped him he would probably crush Rome. And Rome was twice more powerful than those silly future muslims in Persia.And one more thing, NATO general used Hannibal strategy at Cannes in Iraq. After 2000 and more years, man.
@uzickismrad Actually, you know less about Hannibal than I do. Hamilcar gave Hannibal that professional mercenary army. When Hamilcar died, those men went to Hannibal. Persia wasn't hard to fight? Look at how hard Alexander had to fight against Memnon of Rhodes, a general right up in Alexander and Philip's alley. Porus too also gave Alexander the hardest fight of his life at the Hydaspes.
@uzickismrad During the Gulf War, Schwartzkopf used Alexander's tactics as well. Alexander's strategies and tactics are still taught in military academies all over the world today, and they're still used pretty regularly.
@uzickismrad Let's not forget that Hannibal's crossing of the Alps is pretty much dwarfed by Alexander's crossing of the Hindu Kush. Hannibal was using Alexander's type of tactics as well. I'm not saying that Hannibal is a bad general, because don't get me wrong, he was great, but Alexander was just better. Hannibal had so much success because he was fighting people with little to no experience with war.
@uzickismrad Alexander continually came up against people with just as much skill as he had, ie: Memnon, Porus, Bessus, Spitamenes, and won. He was also one of the only generals that has ever been able to master and counter guerilla tactics. Alexander was also able to besiege cities that were considered impossible to take. Hannibal couldn't even besiege Rome.
@Alexandros1294 Hamilcar and his son went to Spain to dig for gold so they can pay army. Couldn't even besiege Rome? What, Rome is easy to besiege? If you had full army and great generals around i think that you would conquer Persia in that time. They're both great, but i think that Alexander is overrated. Do you really think that there was 250 000 persians back then at battle of Gaugamela? Greeks just love to make them self bigger than they truly are. Sorry for my english..
@uzickismrad Alexander only had 47,000 men at Gaugamela. Darius had 250,000 according to modern estimates. Arrian places the army at over a million, Diodorus around 200,000, and there are more varying numbers. So yes, I believe the Persians had 250,000 men at Gaugamela because they were fully capable of putting those numbers on the field.
@uzickismrad Alexander's generals weren't *that* great. There's a reason they are never classed as the best there ever was. Alexander was constantly arguing with them and making them do what HE wanted. Alexander was planning out the campaigns and the battles and carrying out the plans, not THEM. A lot of the generals that earned their reputations for being good generals, didn't earn that reputation in Alexnader's lifetime anyway.
@uzickismrad I think Hannibal is overrated. Hannibal was a great tactician sure, but he was a fuckin terrible strategist. He couldn't coordinate a campaign worth shit. He just milled around Italy hoping people would give him resources. Had he been smarter, he would have made sure he could have gotten the resources he needed while he was in Spain dicking around.
@uzickismrad lol Wikipedia is more open than a hooker's pants. This is according to Robin Lane Fox, Peter Green, JFC Fuller, Paul Cartledge, Joseph Pietrykowski, and many other authorities on Alexander. That's your problem. You're basing an opinion off of wikipedia, not real research. No Achilles was not at Gaugamela. Achilles was long dead. They had better than Achilles. They had Alexander.
@uzickimajmunac Actually, he did. His brother started the ruling family of the Molossian Dynasty in Epirus. Also, Alexander used Achilles' shield during the Siege of Multan.
@Alexandros1294 You know that crystal skulls are fake? That shield was probably ceremonial. Like hide of the hyde Calydonian Boar. Or shield of Ares. Or Gandalf's staff. You know that Macedonian dynasty was founded by Heracles?
@uzickimajmunac Well according to our sources, it was Achilles' shield preserved. The Macedonian Argead Dynasty was started my Temenus, who was from Argos, and a relative of Heracles. Just like how Neopotlemus founded Molossia and so the Molossians claim descent from Achilles, because Neoptolemus was Achilles' brother.
@liberalpower12 Visigoths besieged Rome when Romans were weak. You cant say that Visigoths had no techology at all, that is just silly stereotype of barbarians as unwashed mute savages dressed in furs. Romans had strong sense of unity and duty to the state. Persian empire was loose confederation of many peoples. And they had obsolete army in some way. Respect to Alexander, he had quite an tale to say, but Hannibal had rising power to fight, not some civilization whose days were long gone.
@uzickimajmunac The Persian Empire was the most powerful empire there was back then. Not a loose confederation of different tribes. They were united under the Great Kings, and they would have lasted much longer if it weren't for Alexander's Successors. Darius III wasn't a bad king, he was just inept in the military side of being an emperor. Hannibal was fighting a rising power, Alexander was fighting a world power that had already been established.
@Alexandros1294 nope. the Persian king had many peoples (not tribes, silly) under its rule, and Persia reached its peak two centuries ago. Alexander fought crumbling empire, not young and strong republic of Rome. Agree, Darius was good king but Macedonian and Greek armies were better. And Roman army was better than Greek one. Remember, Persia had army of many skilled soldiers, while Carthage had skilled mercenaries.
@uzickimajmunac The Persian Empire was far from crumbling during the reign of Alexander. Even when Alexander had taken Asia Minor, south to Egypt, they could still fund huge armies. Sure there were a few rebellions and regicides, but the empire was still far from weak. The Persian Empire's weakness is a modern myth.
@uzickimajmunac I also highly doubt that the Roman armies were better than that the Macedonians used. The Macedonian style of war seriously degraded sometime a little before the reign of Antigonus III Doson. Philip V was a great general, better than he is given credit for. If he was using the same style of armies that Alexander used, he would have beat the Romans. The same goes for King Perseus.
@Alexandros1294 Roman legion was more mobile and organized than pxalanx. Faster. More organized. And with better weapons. Antigonus used basicly same type of army as Alexander, but that style of fighting was obsolete. Plus his army werent Philips' veterans. Perseus had Ilyrians as allies, too.
@uzickimajmunac Antigonus Doson did not use the same type of army as Alexander. The Phalanx under Alexander was much more mobile than the Phalanx we read about Philip V and Perseus using. Just reading the first few books of Arrian makes that apparent. Alexander and Philip II's Phalanx would have fucking steamrolled Rome's armies. Pyrrhus beat the Romans with the same type of army, but he had less than 20,000 men.
@Alexandros1294 Pyrrhus was fine general, but he had Elephants, wich were nasty suprise for Romans. But, Romans found way to deal with them. The Phalanx of Alexander had better experience, they had strong sense of unity and will to conquer. And remember, in Alexanders time, Romans killed his cousin and routed his armies. But I think that Alexanders phalanx would crush Romans at the time. And Ceasars legions would chop Alexanders boys badly. And at Heraclea,Phyrrus had bigger numbers,just to say.
@uzickimajmunac Pyrrhus' elephants didn't win the battles for him. It was his active generalship and his phalanx. The elephants hardly ever came to any use. Btw, Alexander of Epirus was Alexander's uncle, not cousin. Also, Alexander of Epirus wasn't using the Macedonian style of war either. He used the traditional Greek style, and he wasn't fighting the Romans. He was fighting the Southern Italian Tribes. At Heraclea, Pyrrhus was actually outnumbered according to the sources.
@Alexandros1294 some say that elephants have best use when first used against enemy. Romans countered them first time against Epiros. Alexander used Macedonian style, because Epiros was close with Macedonia, and it was mountanous region. Alexander fought coalition of Italic tribes, including Romans, who werent great world power in that time.
@uzickimajmunac Alexander of Epirus used the traditional Greek style of warfare, not the Macedonian style. Only the Macedonians used the Macedonian style during the reign of Alexander. It wasn't until much later that Epirus and the rest of Greece adopted the Macedonian style of war. No, Alexander was not fighting the Romans in Italy. He was fighting the Southern Italian states. He made treaties with the Romans, but didn't fight them.
@Alexandros1294 He fought against Latins, too. And Epirote armies used phalanxses, but they were not as strong as roman legions, or even alexanders phalanxes....;)
@Alexandros1294 Pyrrhus used phalanx against Macedonians. They had macedonian type phalanx since Alex. But, they werent of Philips quality, thats why they were defeated by the Latins. You know, some say that Pyrrhus was the best general ever.
@uzickimajmunac Pyrrhus used Macedonian soldiers in his army. The Epirotes didn't adopt the Macedonian Phalanx until Pyrrhus reigned. Alexander of Epirus did not use the Macedonian style of war. Pyrrhus is considered the best general of his day, not the best general ever.
@uzickimajmunac Caesar's legions would have been fucked over by Alexander's men. What are you talking about? Caesar himself said he wasn't as great as Alexander. Hell, even Hannibal admitted he wasn't as good of a general as Alexander. What does that tell you? Your points are very moot and laughable at best.
@Alexandros1294 Ceasar wasnt great as Alexander, but his men were better organized and trained, with better weapons. And for sure , Ceasar wasnt dumb general. Your points are too much influenced and unconversant,; no wonder for a boy who probably masturbates on 300 and rome total war.
@uzickimajmunac Shut the fuck up. You think I learn my history from Rome Total War and 300? You're sorely mistaken. The Roman Army had a much more complex organization. They had better close quarter fighting weapons than that Macedonians. When the Macedonians could keep in medium range fighting, they were the kings of the battlefield.
@Alexandros1294 yep, roman army had better organization. and weapons. "when macedonians could keep in medium range fightning, they were the kings of battlefield" lol. -when slavs were on the top of the canyon and enemy was under them, they were the kings of battlefield too
@uzickimajmunac The Macedonians had good organization and weapons as well. The Romans were just better at fighting face to face, rather than the Macedonians, who liked to keep the enemy away with the Sarissas. Alexander's armies were just as well organized as the Roman legions. Like I said, the Macedonian army's organization degraded as time went on. The formation was more a cumbersome wall of spears during the Roman invasion, rather than the mobile, effective force Alexander used.
@Alexandros1294 Roman army organisation degraded too. Especialy in A.D. But, pillum would make short work of small macedon shields. And with their numbers, romans would surround phalaxses. You see, phalanx was effective until it is breached, like shield wall. Once breached, it was done. But, you see, Philips and Alexs veterans could keep formation on.
@uzickimajmunac lmao. Quit playing Rome Total War. The formation used by Philip and Alexander was not the same phalanx used during the Roman conquest. Philip and Alexander's phalanxes were able to maneuver through almost anything. They weren't always veterans. Philip made a more mobile, and better armed version of the Greek phalanx. That's that. It doesn't matter that they were veterans. They could still operate in any terrain.
@uzickimajmunac Reading the first few books of Arrian, you'll see that Alexander's phalanx was capable of maneuvering through any type of terrain and fighting under all conditions. Reading the first few books of Polybius, you realize that the Phalanx during the Rise of Rome was not the same as Alexander's. That phalanx could only operate on flat ground, of which there was very little in Greece.
@Alexandros1294 they were capable of operating through any terrain because they were veterans from Philip's wars. And yes, any formation could operate on hill (especialy when they are on the top). Considering Macedonians in the Rise of Rome, they werent of same quality because they werent Philips veterans.
@uzickimajmunac They were capable of operating anywhere because that's what the formation allowed them to do, sort of like how the Roman legion was so mobile. The Phalanx of Philip V was not so great.
@Alexandros1294 you have made mistake now. Pyrrhus had greater army than Romans, and better trained. And I agree, Alexander was greater than Hannibal, but it was Hannibal who was better general. He recieved almost no reinforcements, and he laid siege and destroyed 400 towns, sources say.
@uzickimajmunac Alexander was the better general. Alexander conquered more and fought a much more diverse set of enemies and beat them all. He also dismantled the largest empire the world had ever seen to that point and was almost always out numbered.
@Alexandros1294 Alexander conquered so many provinces because of his soldiers. He was outnumbered ,yes, but numbers count little in one battle. And he received many reinforcements. While Carthage sent almost no soldiers to Han. And Alexander is know for his great glory, while Han is known for his tactics while his strategy is used even in modern age. Alexander is known for no strategy, beside that of charging with his excelent horsemen into generals guard. :)
@uzickimajmunac Alexander is actually known for his tactics against double envelopment, great use of terrain, excellent campaign strategy, lightning quick marching, and countering of guerilla tactics. Hannibal is known for Cannae and crossing the Alps, which Alexander beat anyway. Alexander crossed a much mightier mountain range... the Hindu Kush.
@uzickimajmunac What the fuck? You assume I don't read books? I've probably read more books on Alexander and Hannibal than pieces of toilet paper you've wiped your ass with since you were four years old. So quit making assumptions, because you really just make yourself look like an ass.
@uzickimajmunac Yes, Carthage used MERCENARIES. They won't fight and die as hard as someone who's fighting for their homes, or for their nation's glory. The Persian Armies used lots of Greek soldiers. They formed the nucleus of Darius III's armies during the war against Alexander the Great. There were more Greeks fighting for Darius than for Alexander during the war.
@Alexandros1294 If you really think that there were more Greeks fighting for Darius than it is no wonder that you believe that Brad Pitt, pardon, Achiles existed.
@uzickimajmunac By Greeks, I mean Greeks from Greece proper, not Macedonia. Alexander made almost no use of the Greek allies, he was fighting with mostly just Macedonians.
@Alexandros1294 Darius had huge cavalry, but it was not Persian. You see? There were scythians, nomads, greeks, bactrians, mercenaries, but not one people. Like greeks.
@uzickimajmunac He had cavalry from Bactria, Scythia, no Greek cavalry whatsoever, he had cavalry from Hyrcania, India even, and many other satrapies from his empire. All united by the Persians. So it can all be counted as Persian because they were under their rule.
@Alexandros1294 I have lot of respect for Achaemenids (Cyrus especially), and Alexander too. But I think that big part of Alexanders success goes to Philip II.
@uzickimajmunac Well it took Alexander a few months to subdue Greece, while it took Philip almost 20 years... In some small part, Philip II did give Alexander the tools he needed to conquer the world, but Alexander was more able of a general than Philip. Alexander had to face much harder tasks than Philip ever had to. Philip also lost two sieges in his career, while Alexander never lost anything.
@Alexandros1294 Just answer me, do you think that there was 250 000 persians at Gaugamela? I don't know can i take you seriosly if you talk crap like that or for Achilles. He ain't dead, he never lived. Which empire is more famous? Roman empire or Persia? Rome, ofc. If Rome is greater than Persia that means that greatest enemy of rome is greater than greatest enemy of persia. :) Checkmate
@uzickismrad Yes, I do believe there was 250,000 Persians at Gaugamela. I don't believe that there was over a million, according to Arrian, or 600,000 according to other Ancient Historians. I believe Robin Lane Fox, Peter Green, Waldemar Heckel, JFC Fuller, Barry Strauss, and many other authorities are correct about there being 250,000. If you don't believe it, than how many do you think there was? 20?
@uzickimajmunac Only because the Macedonian style of war changed for the worse. They made the Phalanx less mobile than it was during the reign of Philip II and Alexander the Great, which really hindered their ability to fight a mobile enemy like Rome. However, the Romans had their asses handed to them in plenty of battles against the Macedonians. Philip V, Perseus, and Andriscus all gave out some pretty nasty defeats during the Macedonian Wars.
@uzickimajmunac They got their asses kicked in a handful of battles I said. Not they flat out got owned. Read the whole comment before you act like an ass. Andriscus, Philip, and Perseus all defeated several Roman armies, but Italy has a much larger population than Greece does. Philip V had to forcefully bring people into Macedonia (kind of like Tigranes the Great did) in order to give Macedonia the fighting strength it needed.
@Alexandros1294 Macedonians defeated Romans in several battles, but Romans pwned them finaly, because Romans were stronger. Same thing is with Carthage. Numerical advantage has no major role in battles. The main strength is in training, organization and experience. Macedonians had advantage of home ground,too. Well, Romans havent conquered big part of the world because they had morons to fight with. Roman discipline and wits played major role. Thats why romans ruled for centuries.
@uzickimajmunac The reason the Romans defeated the Macedonians is because they could keep replacing defeated armies. Sure, numbers don't count for much in a battle, but in a war, they certainly do. The Macedonians couldn't replace their armies like the Romans could. Their kingdom had a very small population compared to the population of Italy.
@Alexandros1294 Romans werent like Russians in WW2. They had trained armies, and they used the visely. They even became cocky saying that their two legions can defeat any army of the world! Macedonians were in defensive, they even tried to invade Italy during Hannibals bashing there, but they were defeated. Remember, Hannibal and Macedonia had an alliance.
@uzickimajmunac Philip V and Hannibal did have an alliance. If you weren't fucking stupid, you would realize that Philip was tied up fighting the Illyrians and other Greeks along with a Roman Legion during the First Macedonian War, otherwise he would have invaded Italy. He was quite literally surrounded on all sides by enemies.
@uzickimajmunac Wrong again. Philip V couldn't invade Italy because he was tied down by the Greeks and Illyrians. The Romans sent 2 legions to Greece to incite the Aetolians to go to war with Philip. The war continued until the Punic War was over. If Philip had left Greece to invade Italy, the Aetolians would have just taken over his kingdom. He literally couldn't make an invasion with Hannibal because it was IMPOSSIBLE.
@Alexandros1294 Yep. It was impossible because Romans were there. Aetolians could be easily defeted by the Macedonians, but it was the Roman legions that were main threat. Macedonians fought with greeks and romans, but they were defeated, but romans couldnt advance further because of their small number in Greece.
@uzickimajmunac No. Wrong again. Two Roman legions wouldn't not stop any Macedonian Army. The Aetolians were pretty much the equal of the Macedonians during that time period. They had the best cavalry in Greece. The Romans played little to no part in the First Macedonian War. All they did was stir up the Greeks against Philip. They took almost no part in the fighting.
@Alexandros1294 Aeotolians werent as powerful as Macedonians. They played little part, because there was little fightning. But there was. and Macedonians got pwned,
@uzickimajmunac Actually, the First Macedonian War was a Macedonian Victory.... There was plenty of fighting. Just between the Macedonians and Aetolians though. Mainly just skirmishes.
@Alexandros1294 You, know, there was tale that , when Alexander (uncle) lays mortaly wounded in Italy, he compared his fortunes to those of his famous nephew and said that the latter "waged war against women". Fictional story, but there was thruth in it.
@uzickimajmunac That wasn't a tale. That was a letter that Alexander of Epirus sent to one of his friends. I agree though, the Asians weren't as good as fighters as the Italians. Not nearly as rough.
@Alexandros1294 Thats what I am saying. Romans were tougher to fight with. Me thinks that Rommel was good. Flavious Aetius too. Robert E. Lee. I would like to hear your opinion about them. And please tell me, who are better warriors: greeks, germans, americans or ghurkas?
@uzickimajmunac I never said the Romans weren't tougher to fight with. I was just saying that the Persians were formidable enemies as well. Alexander never received that many reinforcements btw. He occasionally did, but he won the first major part of his campaign without reinforcements. Hannibal also got some reinforcements from Gaul and some of the Italian tribes.
@Alexandros1294 Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
@uzickimajmunac Rommel was good. I don't know much about him though. Flavius Aetius was a pretty good general too, but not very noteworthy. Robert E. Lee is probably the 2nd best general in American History, next to George S. Patton.
@Alexandros1294 Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
@Alexandros1294 Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
@uzickimajmunac You really don't know history. What can you expect from someone who thinks Hannibal was better than the greatest military genius of all time?
@Alexandros1294 You would probably say that Alexander's army would beat NATO, right? Ofc, they would stab their tanks with spears and arrows so badly that Alex could use his only strategy very easy... He would enter general's squad on a horse and killed enemy's general with spear so quick that he would be dead before he fell down on a ground (from a plain) ...
@uzickismrad No, Alexander was not gay. It's really hard to take you seriously though, when you make claims on someone's generalship based on their sexual preferences.
@uzickismrad Rome is only more famous in the West. In the East, Persia is more famous. Look at it from a global view. Persia was greater than Rome. More wealthy, more powerful, and more expansive.
@Alexandros1294 Persia was greater than Rome in 7th century BC. In long run, Rome was more influental than Persia. With better army. Greater generals.
@uzickismrad You're also stupid if you think Achilles never existed. There's plenty of evidence to point out that he did... seeing as how his family started the Royal House of the Molossians, his shield was used during Alexander's lifetime, and we've even found the sarcophagus of Agamemnon in Mycenae... Just face it, Hannibal was a loser, Alexander was a winner. That's why he's Alexander THE GREAT. Hannibal doesn't have that title.
@Alexandros1294 yep hannibal was loser. alexander was winner. but hannibal was better general. achiles realy existed. was he looking like brad pitt? XD
@uzickimajmunac lol if Hannibal was the better general, he would have been a winner. There's a reason Alexander is put at the top of every list of the greatest generals of all time. Yes, Achilles looked exactly like Brad Pitt. Odysseus also looked just like Boromir off of Lord of the Rings. Alexander looked just like Colin Farrell, and Hannibal looked just like the big black Zulu that played him on the history channel. Weird how that works eh?
@Alexandros1294 The enemy you fight also counts. Thats why Persians were defeated by Greeks, and not by Egyptians. Man, I would like more to fight 5 times outnumbered with veterans elite by my side, than invading foreign country, with battle hardened legions in their land, twice outnumbered, when crossing over Alps made my army twice weaker. And to survive in the middle of the enemy land for 15 years, surrounded by enemy legions.
@uzickimajmunac Well the Egyptians weren't as numerous as the Persians. They used practically the same styles of warfare, which depend on numbers, so it's no wonder why Egypt was conquered by the Persians. Hannibal had an army of veterans, just like Alexander. Those sieges and crossings he made weakened his army considerably. At the Hydaspes, he had around 40,000 soldiers present, but only 18,000 were in conditions that would allow them to fight.
@Alexandros1294 small number of Hannibals army were veterans, he had to recruit Gaul bands, mercenaries and to receive help from lazy fat asses from Carthage. For 15 years, constantly surrounded by Roman legions. Plus, He had to conquer almost every Roman city, while Alexander had almost all sieges in Asia Minor and Palestine. Yep, we know that he lost almost an year at Tyre. And crushed silly Persianas in few more battles, than Persians kissed his royal ass.
@uzickimajmunac Alexander spent 6 months at Tyre and won a resounding victory there. He never lost some of the most spectacular sieges of the Ancient World. He also had a lot of hill tribes to deal with over in what's not Eastern Iran and Afghanistan.
@Alexandros1294 He became really pissed at Tyre. Crucified all men out there. And he was really pissed at that commander of Gaza; he dragged him in chariots, just like Brad Pitt did. After Gaugamella Persian Empire was in chaos, admit it.
@uzickismrad Alexander is actually considered the greatest general in history. Not that dumbass Hannibal. Hannibal couldn't even make a tangible campaign strategy. He could fight a battle like no other, but his campaign plans sucked ass. Alexander was much better both tactically and strategically.
@Alexandros1294 Should i say that Genghis Khan is greater than Alexander just because he had more territory to rule? Alexander is overrated. People ideolize him. Hannibal fucked greatest empire for 15 years. He received no help from Catrhage. If he did he would conquere Rome! Rome, not some future muslims shit hole!
@uzickismrad No, Ghengis Khan killed his enemies with consistency. He's not considered a great general because he did the same thing everytime. Sent in troops that he didn't give a shit about and made the enemy waste energy, strength, ammunition etc, and then sent in his best.
@uzickimajmunac Well if reading the books written by top authorities on the subjects is pornography... then I would hate to see what a "real" history book looks like to you.
@uzickimajmunac With no base to found your knowledge on. Hannibal lost a few battles. Alexander lost none. Hannibal was fighting only ONE type of enemy with all sorts of shitty generals coming after him. When Hannibal met someone of the same caliber as him, he lost.
Alexander fought all sorts of enemies and beat back those that were just as good as him every time he met them. He never lost a battle or a siege.
@Alexandros1294 Wrong. Scipion wasnt briliant general like Hannibal, he defeated general using Hannibals tactics against him. Hannibal fought many enemies, such as Gauls, Iberians, Romans and Numidians. He was allied with Macedonians. Best general Alexander fought was Memnon from Rhodes, and, Poros maybe. I have admiration of Alexander because he defeated the Scythians (who according to legend, were unbeatable until that moment).
@uzickimajmunac Scipio wasn't a brilliant general? Is that why he never lost a battle and was able to beat all of his enemies, including Hannibal's brothers in Spain, Hannibal himself, and Antiochus the Great? Lmao. Memonon of Rhodes, Spitamenes, Bessus, and Porus were the best generals Alexander faced. They were not easy generals to go up against either.
@Alexandros1294 Scipio was good, but not genius like Hannibal. Bessus, or Artaxerxes V (if you like) was good schemer, but he havent got the chance to face Alexander. 99% is chance that he would be pwned in battle. Memnon was best Alex's enemy.
@uzickimajmunac I would say Scipio could go down as just as good as Napoleon. There are some historians who think so. Of course Bessus would get destroyed by Alexander in battle... everyone was. Bessus waged guerilla war against Alexander, like Spitamenes, so that is why Bessus goes as the best he fought. He was the only one able to cut off supplies from Alexander from time to time. He also had to chase him across the Hindu Kush.
@Alexandros1294 Hindu Kush...Hundu Kush. The only place where Alexander was halted. But how you can defeat enemy who is 50 meters above you and pounding you with stones, arrows, spears and snowballs? Even with those Ilyrian mountain-climbers.
@Alexandros1294 no, no I mean that mountain pass where Alexander was halted (I think that he was halted for few days) and then he found some weird way to smack Persians.
@Alexandros1294 I dont make claims on someone's generalship based on their sexual preferences. Just.. would you like to a faggot be your leader? :) Hannibal discerned his wife's needs and satisfied them
with the utmost skill and the utmost courtesy. But Alex probably sent his wife
@uzickimajmunac Napoleon didn't have that many defeats on his hands. He fought many more battles than Scipio, however. It's hard to compare generals that are so far apart in time.
@uzickimajmunac The only good general Hannibal ever went up against was Scipio Africanus. Fabius was too scared to fight him. None of the Roman generals Hannibal went against even had experience in war. They were just the consuls that led for a year.
@uzickimajmunac When did I say he didn't get pissed at Tyre? For one, he was going to take it anyway because it was a vital port that the Persians used, and yes, he did drag Batis, who was very much alive, around the city of Gaza on a chariot, just like ACHILLES. The Persian Empire was under a good consolidated rule however after Darius III took the throne. The chaos had ended.
@Alexandros1294 He got pissed because people of Tyre kicked his ass (before he built bridge and swarmed the city). He got pissed because Batis who fought him bravely and Alexander wanted to be new Achiles (lets put aside that Achiles havent existed, just like Santa, Thor and Bono). Darius took the throne of weakened empire. You know that story that Alex cried when he found out that Dar was killed? Those tears were fake. Yep he was realy sad because he kicked the Persians for good XD
@uzickimajmunac He got pissed at Tyre because they wouldn't surrender when he first arrived at the city. He was pissed at Batis for resisting him. You're getting the story wrong again. Alexander didn't cry at Darius' death. He covered his body with a cloak and gave his body full honors. You're really quite stupid when it comes to Alexander.
@Alexandros1294 Halicarnassus resisted his invasion too, but he didnt crucified the population. Batis gave him great ressistance ( outnumbered, yes) and Alexander was pissed at him. Alexander shed fake tears just to astonish persians. I wonder why he didnt dragged him in chariots? I am maybe stupid, but then facts are stupid. And you are quite impartial and intolerant when some shares his own opinion that is opposite of yours. Tell me, who is the best guitarist of 20th century?
@uzickimajmunac Halicarnassus was where Alexander beat Memnon. He gave Batis the opportunity to surrender, and he didn't take it. Alexander made examples of those who resisted him, but those who surrendered were treated with magnanimity. Alexander truly did have genuine respect for Darius III. He didn't shed fake tears, he respected an adversary. I'm not impartial or intolerant to those with different opinions, just intolerant to those making stupid opinions with no base.
@uzickimajmunac If you said Napoleon was a better general than Alexander, then I would be on the fence about that. I could actually take you seriously then. But you've shown that you're very ignorant on the subject of both Hannibal and Alexander, so in that case, I have a right to be an ass.
@Alexandros1294 I don't think that there was 20 000 persians but 250 000? lol... I would say, 47 000 greeks vs 60-70 000 persians. Alexander was gay (you can see that even in this movie, from which came your knowledge) Don't say in public that Achilles existed. It's for your own good. People will laugh at you. I like Feanor very much but i cant say that he existed just because i like him. Are you from USA?
@uzickismrad Alexander wasn't gay. There isn't even evidence for that. In fact, there's more evidence that points away from the common misconception that "Alexander was gay" than evidence that points in the direction that he was. It's very likely that Achilles did exist. There's evidence of it. The Persians had 250,000 at Gaugamela. Alexander was outnumbered enough that the enemy battle line was miles longer than his own.
@uzickismrad The Persians were crowded to the point where they couldn't maneuver as well as they had liked to. With only 70,000 to work with, they would have had plenty of room to maneuver, which wasn't the case at Gaugamela. I've seen the battle site.
@uzickismrad Basically homosexuality in Greece is like it is in the US today. It's there, but it's not a major part of society like everyone tends to think it is.
@Alexandros1294 When Philip started to rule, he had Greece as enemy. Sparta, Athens, Thebes. And Ilyrians too. And Thracians. Philip built empire for 20 years, conquering enemy, one by one, manipulating, and, of course defeating Greek alliance at Chaeronea. After that battle, Greece was relativly easy to pick. Alexander destroyed weakened Thebes later. Philip built army ;from the hillmen he made phalanx. Alexander led veterans to Asia.
@forevermkd Shut up. Macedonia is Greek. Greeks have stolen nothing. You have stolen Macedonian history. Go read Herodotus you uneducated piece of Slavic shit.
Things are far more complex than that,Indo-Aryans were a component of Greece,Macedonia,and Thracia,and the slavic culture is the "direct descendant"of the Indo-Aryan one.
@StellandBlood Uh huh... The Aryans migrated everywhere. There are plenty of people that can be considered 'direct descedants.' Macedonia was a very Greek Kingdom, as was Epirus.
@StellandBlood Yes it was. Robin Lane Fox, Peter Green, NGL Hammond, Donald Kagan, Mike Roberts, Bob Bennett, Alan Fildes, Adrienne Mayor, Thucydides, Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Polybius, Livy, Paul Cartledge, Guy Maclean Rogers, Lewis V. Cummings, and several other historians, would kick you in the balls right now for saying that.
@forevermkd I don't care about macedonian or greek history, I am just telling you to use correct words when speaking english.. macedonian word "краде" means "steal" in english, "steel" is "челик"
You Serbians are funny
sm0keshell 4 months ago
Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad lmao, you'd be better off finding an apartment complex. I don't think you'd get along very well with me to be honest... not to mention I have no clue who you are.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Well, you will meet us when we come there... We are very very good boys. Next year you can come to our place in Serbia... Ofc, we will find jobs in USA so you don't have to pay weed all by yourself. What do you say? For the second time, where're you from? Please tell me that you're from Dixie...
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad lol not even close. I don't smoke weed either. I'm not telling you where I live, lol.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago 2
@Alexandros1294 That's great man. I was just testin you, i don't wanna live with a junkie ofc.. We don't smoke weed too. You passed the exam. Congratulations.. Relax, we're not terrorist. Send me you addrres in inbox, please..
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Your not telling us where we live? We have ways and means.....and you will give us shelter...we are good, hardworking serbsky boys. Please tell us from wich state are you from
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 never trust Serbians...
sm0keshell 4 months ago 2
Hannibal Barca is better general than Alexander.
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Actually no. Alexander's success rate was 100% .... It doesn't get better than that. Hannibal lost when he met someone just as good as he was. Alexander didn't.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 I see that you don't know much about Hannibal. He was alone, no one provided army for him (like Philip did for Alexander). Alexander had well educated generals around him and when Hannibal asked Carthage for help they said "No" . If they helped him he would probably crush Rome. And Rome was twice more powerful than those silly future muslims in Persia.And one more thing, NATO general used Hannibal strategy at Cannes in Iraq. After 2000 and more years, man.
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Actually, you know less about Hannibal than I do. Hamilcar gave Hannibal that professional mercenary army. When Hamilcar died, those men went to Hannibal. Persia wasn't hard to fight? Look at how hard Alexander had to fight against Memnon of Rhodes, a general right up in Alexander and Philip's alley. Porus too also gave Alexander the hardest fight of his life at the Hydaspes.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad During the Gulf War, Schwartzkopf used Alexander's tactics as well. Alexander's strategies and tactics are still taught in military academies all over the world today, and they're still used pretty regularly.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Let's not forget that Hannibal's crossing of the Alps is pretty much dwarfed by Alexander's crossing of the Hindu Kush. Hannibal was using Alexander's type of tactics as well. I'm not saying that Hannibal is a bad general, because don't get me wrong, he was great, but Alexander was just better. Hannibal had so much success because he was fighting people with little to no experience with war.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Alexander continually came up against people with just as much skill as he had, ie: Memnon, Porus, Bessus, Spitamenes, and won. He was also one of the only generals that has ever been able to master and counter guerilla tactics. Alexander was also able to besiege cities that were considered impossible to take. Hannibal couldn't even besiege Rome.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Hamilcar and his son went to Spain to dig for gold so they can pay army. Couldn't even besiege Rome? What, Rome is easy to besiege? If you had full army and great generals around i think that you would conquer Persia in that time. They're both great, but i think that Alexander is overrated. Do you really think that there was 250 000 persians back then at battle of Gaugamela? Greeks just love to make them self bigger than they truly are. Sorry for my english..
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Alexander only had 47,000 men at Gaugamela. Darius had 250,000 according to modern estimates. Arrian places the army at over a million, Diodorus around 200,000, and there are more varying numbers. So yes, I believe the Persians had 250,000 men at Gaugamela because they were fully capable of putting those numbers on the field.
liberalpower12 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Alexander's generals weren't *that* great. There's a reason they are never classed as the best there ever was. Alexander was constantly arguing with them and making them do what HE wanted. Alexander was planning out the campaigns and the battles and carrying out the plans, not THEM. A lot of the generals that earned their reputations for being good generals, didn't earn that reputation in Alexnader's lifetime anyway.
liberalpower12 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Hell, a lot of those generals were just lowly officers during Alexander's reign.
liberalpower12 1 year ago
@uzickismrad I think Hannibal is overrated. Hannibal was a great tactician sure, but he was a fuckin terrible strategist. He couldn't coordinate a campaign worth shit. He just milled around Italy hoping people would give him resources. Had he been smarter, he would have made sure he could have gotten the resources he needed while he was in Spain dicking around.
liberalpower12 1 year ago
@uzickismrad And yes, Rome must have been incredibly easy to besiege if a bunch of Visigoths with no technology could do it.
liberalpower12 1 year ago
@liberalpower12 250 000 Persians against 47 000 Greeks? lol Achilles was there, huh? Maybe wikipedia will help you, boy.
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad lol Wikipedia is more open than a hooker's pants. This is according to Robin Lane Fox, Peter Green, JFC Fuller, Paul Cartledge, Joseph Pietrykowski, and many other authorities on Alexander. That's your problem. You're basing an opinion off of wikipedia, not real research. No Achilles was not at Gaugamela. Achilles was long dead. They had better than Achilles. They had Alexander.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 achilles never existed
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Actually, he did. His brother started the ruling family of the Molossian Dynasty in Epirus. Also, Alexander used Achilles' shield during the Siege of Multan.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 You know that crystal skulls are fake? That shield was probably ceremonial. Like hide of the hyde Calydonian Boar. Or shield of Ares. Or Gandalf's staff. You know that Macedonian dynasty was founded by Heracles?
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Well according to our sources, it was Achilles' shield preserved. The Macedonian Argead Dynasty was started my Temenus, who was from Argos, and a relative of Heracles. Just like how Neopotlemus founded Molossia and so the Molossians claim descent from Achilles, because Neoptolemus was Achilles' brother.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 You know, I find some human scalp and I will tell people that it is the scalp of yeti. And for generations, people will believe.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@liberalpower12 Visigoths besieged Rome when Romans were weak. You cant say that Visigoths had no techology at all, that is just silly stereotype of barbarians as unwashed mute savages dressed in furs. Romans had strong sense of unity and duty to the state. Persian empire was loose confederation of many peoples. And they had obsolete army in some way. Respect to Alexander, he had quite an tale to say, but Hannibal had rising power to fight, not some civilization whose days were long gone.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The Persian Empire was the most powerful empire there was back then. Not a loose confederation of different tribes. They were united under the Great Kings, and they would have lasted much longer if it weren't for Alexander's Successors. Darius III wasn't a bad king, he was just inept in the military side of being an emperor. Hannibal was fighting a rising power, Alexander was fighting a world power that had already been established.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 nope. the Persian king had many peoples (not tribes, silly) under its rule, and Persia reached its peak two centuries ago. Alexander fought crumbling empire, not young and strong republic of Rome. Agree, Darius was good king but Macedonian and Greek armies were better. And Roman army was better than Greek one. Remember, Persia had army of many skilled soldiers, while Carthage had skilled mercenaries.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The Persian Empire was far from crumbling during the reign of Alexander. Even when Alexander had taken Asia Minor, south to Egypt, they could still fund huge armies. Sure there were a few rebellions and regicides, but the empire was still far from weak. The Persian Empire's weakness is a modern myth.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac I also highly doubt that the Roman armies were better than that the Macedonians used. The Macedonian style of war seriously degraded sometime a little before the reign of Antigonus III Doson. Philip V was a great general, better than he is given credit for. If he was using the same style of armies that Alexander used, he would have beat the Romans. The same goes for King Perseus.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Roman legion was more mobile and organized than pxalanx. Faster. More organized. And with better weapons. Antigonus used basicly same type of army as Alexander, but that style of fighting was obsolete. Plus his army werent Philips' veterans. Perseus had Ilyrians as allies, too.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Antigonus Doson did not use the same type of army as Alexander. The Phalanx under Alexander was much more mobile than the Phalanx we read about Philip V and Perseus using. Just reading the first few books of Arrian makes that apparent. Alexander and Philip II's Phalanx would have fucking steamrolled Rome's armies. Pyrrhus beat the Romans with the same type of army, but he had less than 20,000 men.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Pyrrhus was fine general, but he had Elephants, wich were nasty suprise for Romans. But, Romans found way to deal with them. The Phalanx of Alexander had better experience, they had strong sense of unity and will to conquer. And remember, in Alexanders time, Romans killed his cousin and routed his armies. But I think that Alexanders phalanx would crush Romans at the time. And Ceasars legions would chop Alexanders boys badly. And at Heraclea,Phyrrus had bigger numbers,just to say.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Pyrrhus' elephants didn't win the battles for him. It was his active generalship and his phalanx. The elephants hardly ever came to any use. Btw, Alexander of Epirus was Alexander's uncle, not cousin. Also, Alexander of Epirus wasn't using the Macedonian style of war either. He used the traditional Greek style, and he wasn't fighting the Romans. He was fighting the Southern Italian Tribes. At Heraclea, Pyrrhus was actually outnumbered according to the sources.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 some say that elephants have best use when first used against enemy. Romans countered them first time against Epiros. Alexander used Macedonian style, because Epiros was close with Macedonia, and it was mountanous region. Alexander fought coalition of Italic tribes, including Romans, who werent great world power in that time.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Alexander of Epirus used the traditional Greek style of warfare, not the Macedonian style. Only the Macedonians used the Macedonian style during the reign of Alexander. It wasn't until much later that Epirus and the rest of Greece adopted the Macedonian style of war. No, Alexander was not fighting the Romans in Italy. He was fighting the Southern Italian states. He made treaties with the Romans, but didn't fight them.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 He fought against Latins, too. And Epirote armies used phalanxses, but they were not as strong as roman legions, or even alexanders phalanxes....;)
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The Epirotes only used the Macedonian Phalanx during the reign of Pyrrhus. Alexander I of Epirus was using the old Greek phalanx.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Pyrrhus used phalanx against Macedonians. They had macedonian type phalanx since Alex. But, they werent of Philips quality, thats why they were defeated by the Latins. You know, some say that Pyrrhus was the best general ever.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Pyrrhus used Macedonian soldiers in his army. The Epirotes didn't adopt the Macedonian Phalanx until Pyrrhus reigned. Alexander of Epirus did not use the Macedonian style of war. Pyrrhus is considered the best general of his day, not the best general ever.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Caesar's legions would have been fucked over by Alexander's men. What are you talking about? Caesar himself said he wasn't as great as Alexander. Hell, even Hannibal admitted he wasn't as good of a general as Alexander. What does that tell you? Your points are very moot and laughable at best.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Ceasar wasnt great as Alexander, but his men were better organized and trained, with better weapons. And for sure , Ceasar wasnt dumb general. Your points are too much influenced and unconversant,; no wonder for a boy who probably masturbates on 300 and rome total war.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Shut the fuck up. You think I learn my history from Rome Total War and 300? You're sorely mistaken. The Roman Army had a much more complex organization. They had better close quarter fighting weapons than that Macedonians. When the Macedonians could keep in medium range fighting, they were the kings of the battlefield.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 yep, roman army had better organization. and weapons. "when macedonians could keep in medium range fightning, they were the kings of battlefield" lol. -when slavs were on the top of the canyon and enemy was under them, they were the kings of battlefield too
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The Macedonians had good organization and weapons as well. The Romans were just better at fighting face to face, rather than the Macedonians, who liked to keep the enemy away with the Sarissas. Alexander's armies were just as well organized as the Roman legions. Like I said, the Macedonian army's organization degraded as time went on. The formation was more a cumbersome wall of spears during the Roman invasion, rather than the mobile, effective force Alexander used.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Roman army organisation degraded too. Especialy in A.D. But, pillum would make short work of small macedon shields. And with their numbers, romans would surround phalaxses. You see, phalanx was effective until it is breached, like shield wall. Once breached, it was done. But, you see, Philips and Alexs veterans could keep formation on.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac lmao. Quit playing Rome Total War. The formation used by Philip and Alexander was not the same phalanx used during the Roman conquest. Philip and Alexander's phalanxes were able to maneuver through almost anything. They weren't always veterans. Philip made a more mobile, and better armed version of the Greek phalanx. That's that. It doesn't matter that they were veterans. They could still operate in any terrain.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Reading the first few books of Arrian, you'll see that Alexander's phalanx was capable of maneuvering through any type of terrain and fighting under all conditions. Reading the first few books of Polybius, you realize that the Phalanx during the Rise of Rome was not the same as Alexander's. That phalanx could only operate on flat ground, of which there was very little in Greece.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 they were capable of operating through any terrain because they were veterans from Philip's wars. And yes, any formation could operate on hill (especialy when they are on the top). Considering Macedonians in the Rise of Rome, they werent of same quality because they werent Philips veterans.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac They were capable of operating anywhere because that's what the formation allowed them to do, sort of like how the Roman legion was so mobile. The Phalanx of Philip V was not so great.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 you have made mistake now. Pyrrhus had greater army than Romans, and better trained. And I agree, Alexander was greater than Hannibal, but it was Hannibal who was better general. He recieved almost no reinforcements, and he laid siege and destroyed 400 towns, sources say.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Alexander was the better general. Alexander conquered more and fought a much more diverse set of enemies and beat them all. He also dismantled the largest empire the world had ever seen to that point and was almost always out numbered.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Alexander conquered so many provinces because of his soldiers. He was outnumbered ,yes, but numbers count little in one battle. And he received many reinforcements. While Carthage sent almost no soldiers to Han. And Alexander is know for his great glory, while Han is known for his tactics while his strategy is used even in modern age. Alexander is known for no strategy, beside that of charging with his excelent horsemen into generals guard. :)
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Alexander is actually known for his tactics against double envelopment, great use of terrain, excellent campaign strategy, lightning quick marching, and countering of guerilla tactics. Hannibal is known for Cannae and crossing the Alps, which Alexander beat anyway. Alexander crossed a much mightier mountain range... the Hindu Kush.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 and stop using wikipedia, boy. Surrender to real master of the history. And read more books.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac What the fuck? You assume I don't read books? I've probably read more books on Alexander and Hannibal than pieces of toilet paper you've wiped your ass with since you were four years old. So quit making assumptions, because you really just make yourself look like an ass.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Yes, Carthage used MERCENARIES. They won't fight and die as hard as someone who's fighting for their homes, or for their nation's glory. The Persian Armies used lots of Greek soldiers. They formed the nucleus of Darius III's armies during the war against Alexander the Great. There were more Greeks fighting for Darius than for Alexander during the war.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 If you really think that there were more Greeks fighting for Darius than it is no wonder that you believe that Brad Pitt, pardon, Achiles existed.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac By Greeks, I mean Greeks from Greece proper, not Macedonia. Alexander made almost no use of the Greek allies, he was fighting with mostly just Macedonians.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Also, as far as cavalry goes, Darius had huge advantages over Alexander. His cavalry was much better than the Macedonian cavalry.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Darius had huge cavalry, but it was not Persian. You see? There were scythians, nomads, greeks, bactrians, mercenaries, but not one people. Like greeks.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac He had cavalry from Bactria, Scythia, no Greek cavalry whatsoever, he had cavalry from Hyrcania, India even, and many other satrapies from his empire. All united by the Persians. So it can all be counted as Persian because they were under their rule.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 I have lot of respect for Achaemenids (Cyrus especially), and Alexander too. But I think that big part of Alexanders success goes to Philip II.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Well it took Alexander a few months to subdue Greece, while it took Philip almost 20 years... In some small part, Philip II did give Alexander the tools he needed to conquer the world, but Alexander was more able of a general than Philip. Alexander had to face much harder tasks than Philip ever had to. Philip also lost two sieges in his career, while Alexander never lost anything.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Just answer me, do you think that there was 250 000 persians at Gaugamela? I don't know can i take you seriosly if you talk crap like that or for Achilles. He ain't dead, he never lived. Which empire is more famous? Roman empire or Persia? Rome, ofc. If Rome is greater than Persia that means that greatest enemy of rome is greater than greatest enemy of persia. :) Checkmate
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Yes, I do believe there was 250,000 Persians at Gaugamela. I don't believe that there was over a million, according to Arrian, or 600,000 according to other Ancient Historians. I believe Robin Lane Fox, Peter Green, Waldemar Heckel, JFC Fuller, Barry Strauss, and many other authorities are correct about there being 250,000. If you don't believe it, than how many do you think there was? 20?
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 And Romans kicked greek asses in almost every battle. Even if they had elephants, sand niggers or Alexander.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Only because the Macedonian style of war changed for the worse. They made the Phalanx less mobile than it was during the reign of Philip II and Alexander the Great, which really hindered their ability to fight a mobile enemy like Rome. However, the Romans had their asses handed to them in plenty of battles against the Macedonians. Philip V, Perseus, and Andriscus all gave out some pretty nasty defeats during the Macedonian Wars.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 The quality of their units worsened. Yep. Romans had their asses kicked, thats why they conquered Greeks and Macedonians.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac They got their asses kicked in a handful of battles I said. Not they flat out got owned. Read the whole comment before you act like an ass. Andriscus, Philip, and Perseus all defeated several Roman armies, but Italy has a much larger population than Greece does. Philip V had to forcefully bring people into Macedonia (kind of like Tigranes the Great did) in order to give Macedonia the fighting strength it needed.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Macedonians defeated Romans in several battles, but Romans pwned them finaly, because Romans were stronger. Same thing is with Carthage. Numerical advantage has no major role in battles. The main strength is in training, organization and experience. Macedonians had advantage of home ground,too. Well, Romans havent conquered big part of the world because they had morons to fight with. Roman discipline and wits played major role. Thats why romans ruled for centuries.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The reason the Romans defeated the Macedonians is because they could keep replacing defeated armies. Sure, numbers don't count for much in a battle, but in a war, they certainly do. The Macedonians couldn't replace their armies like the Romans could. Their kingdom had a very small population compared to the population of Italy.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Romans werent like Russians in WW2. They had trained armies, and they used the visely. They even became cocky saying that their two legions can defeat any army of the world! Macedonians were in defensive, they even tried to invade Italy during Hannibals bashing there, but they were defeated. Remember, Hannibal and Macedonia had an alliance.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Philip V and Hannibal did have an alliance. If you weren't fucking stupid, you would realize that Philip was tied up fighting the Illyrians and other Greeks along with a Roman Legion during the First Macedonian War, otherwise he would have invaded Italy. He was quite literally surrounded on all sides by enemies.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 He would have invaded Italy, but he had one obstacle. Romans.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Wrong again. Philip V couldn't invade Italy because he was tied down by the Greeks and Illyrians. The Romans sent 2 legions to Greece to incite the Aetolians to go to war with Philip. The war continued until the Punic War was over. If Philip had left Greece to invade Italy, the Aetolians would have just taken over his kingdom. He literally couldn't make an invasion with Hannibal because it was IMPOSSIBLE.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Yep. It was impossible because Romans were there. Aetolians could be easily defeted by the Macedonians, but it was the Roman legions that were main threat. Macedonians fought with greeks and romans, but they were defeated, but romans couldnt advance further because of their small number in Greece.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac No. Wrong again. Two Roman legions wouldn't not stop any Macedonian Army. The Aetolians were pretty much the equal of the Macedonians during that time period. They had the best cavalry in Greece. The Romans played little to no part in the First Macedonian War. All they did was stir up the Greeks against Philip. They took almost no part in the fighting.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Aeotolians werent as powerful as Macedonians. They played little part, because there was little fightning. But there was. and Macedonians got pwned,
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Actually, the First Macedonian War was a Macedonian Victory.... There was plenty of fighting. Just between the Macedonians and Aetolians though. Mainly just skirmishes.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 You, know, there was tale that , when Alexander (uncle) lays mortaly wounded in Italy, he compared his fortunes to those of his famous nephew and said that the latter "waged war against women". Fictional story, but there was thruth in it.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac That wasn't a tale. That was a letter that Alexander of Epirus sent to one of his friends. I agree though, the Asians weren't as good as fighters as the Italians. Not nearly as rough.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Thats what I am saying. Romans were tougher to fight with. Me thinks that Rommel was good. Flavious Aetius too. Robert E. Lee. I would like to hear your opinion about them. And please tell me, who are better warriors: greeks, germans, americans or ghurkas?
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac I never said the Romans weren't tougher to fight with. I was just saying that the Persians were formidable enemies as well. Alexander never received that many reinforcements btw. He occasionally did, but he won the first major part of his campaign without reinforcements. Hannibal also got some reinforcements from Gaul and some of the Italian tribes.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alexandros1294 Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Rommel was good. I don't know much about him though. Flavius Aetius was a pretty good general too, but not very noteworthy. Robert E. Lee is probably the 2nd best general in American History, next to George S. Patton.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alexandros1294 Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
uzickismrad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alexandros1294 Hey, Alexandros, me and my friend (uzickimajmunac) are plannig to come USA to live for few months.. Would you mind if we come to your place? We don't have where to sleep. Where're you from?
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac You really don't know history. What can you expect from someone who thinks Hannibal was better than the greatest military genius of all time?
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 You would probably say that Alexander's army would beat NATO, right? Ofc, they would stab their tanks with spears and arrows so badly that Alex could use his only strategy very easy... He would enter general's squad on a horse and killed enemy's general with spear so quick that he would be dead before he fell down on a ground (from a plain) ...
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad No. Sarissas don't beat tanks. Alexander would beat Hannibal however.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Yes he would beat him in swallowing cum (Alex done that... wuuu. what a fine man and general) lol
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad No, Alexander was not gay. It's really hard to take you seriously though, when you make claims on someone's generalship based on their sexual preferences.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac So no, they didn't try to invade Italy. They wanted to, but they couldn't.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Rome is only more famous in the West. In the East, Persia is more famous. Look at it from a global view. Persia was greater than Rome. More wealthy, more powerful, and more expansive.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Persia was greater than Rome in 7th century BC. In long run, Rome was more influental than Persia. With better army. Greater generals.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickismrad You're also stupid if you think Achilles never existed. There's plenty of evidence to point out that he did... seeing as how his family started the Royal House of the Molossians, his shield was used during Alexander's lifetime, and we've even found the sarcophagus of Agamemnon in Mycenae... Just face it, Hannibal was a loser, Alexander was a winner. That's why he's Alexander THE GREAT. Hannibal doesn't have that title.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 yep hannibal was loser. alexander was winner. but hannibal was better general. achiles realy existed. was he looking like brad pitt? XD
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac lol if Hannibal was the better general, he would have been a winner. There's a reason Alexander is put at the top of every list of the greatest generals of all time. Yes, Achilles looked exactly like Brad Pitt. Odysseus also looked just like Boromir off of Lord of the Rings. Alexander looked just like Colin Farrell, and Hannibal looked just like the big black Zulu that played him on the history channel. Weird how that works eh?
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 The enemy you fight also counts. Thats why Persians were defeated by Greeks, and not by Egyptians. Man, I would like more to fight 5 times outnumbered with veterans elite by my side, than invading foreign country, with battle hardened legions in their land, twice outnumbered, when crossing over Alps made my army twice weaker. And to survive in the middle of the enemy land for 15 years, surrounded by enemy legions.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Well the Egyptians weren't as numerous as the Persians. They used practically the same styles of warfare, which depend on numbers, so it's no wonder why Egypt was conquered by the Persians. Hannibal had an army of veterans, just like Alexander. Those sieges and crossings he made weakened his army considerably. At the Hydaspes, he had around 40,000 soldiers present, but only 18,000 were in conditions that would allow them to fight.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 small number of Hannibals army were veterans, he had to recruit Gaul bands, mercenaries and to receive help from lazy fat asses from Carthage. For 15 years, constantly surrounded by Roman legions. Plus, He had to conquer almost every Roman city, while Alexander had almost all sieges in Asia Minor and Palestine. Yep, we know that he lost almost an year at Tyre. And crushed silly Persianas in few more battles, than Persians kissed his royal ass.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Alexander spent 6 months at Tyre and won a resounding victory there. He never lost some of the most spectacular sieges of the Ancient World. He also had a lot of hill tribes to deal with over in what's not Eastern Iran and Afghanistan.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 He became really pissed at Tyre. Crucified all men out there. And he was really pissed at that commander of Gaza; he dragged him in chariots, just like Brad Pitt did. After Gaugamella Persian Empire was in chaos, admit it.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac That's right, man. Alexander is greater than Hannibal but Hannibal is way better general. Probably the best in history.
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Alexander is actually considered the greatest general in history. Not that dumbass Hannibal. Hannibal couldn't even make a tangible campaign strategy. He could fight a battle like no other, but his campaign plans sucked ass. Alexander was much better both tactically and strategically.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Should i say that Genghis Khan is greater than Alexander just because he had more territory to rule? Alexander is overrated. People ideolize him. Hannibal fucked greatest empire for 15 years. He received no help from Catrhage. If he did he would conquere Rome! Rome, not some future muslims shit hole!
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad No, Ghengis Khan killed his enemies with consistency. He's not considered a great general because he did the same thing everytime. Sent in troops that he didn't give a shit about and made the enemy waste energy, strength, ammunition etc, and then sent in his best.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Pornography doesnt count as books
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Good thing I don't read porn then.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 pornography is sometimes in paper. Those arent books.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Well if reading the books written by top authorities on the subjects is pornography... then I would hate to see what a "real" history book looks like to you.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 that is not pornography. those are historical books. Wrong again.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 I didn't know that Alexander used Brad Pitt's shield... Ya fuckin' Yank', south will rise again! :))
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad LMAO I'm American, not a psychopath! hahahaha
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 ...but Hannibal was better general
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac With no base to found your knowledge on. Hannibal lost a few battles. Alexander lost none. Hannibal was fighting only ONE type of enemy with all sorts of shitty generals coming after him. When Hannibal met someone of the same caliber as him, he lost.
Alexander fought all sorts of enemies and beat back those that were just as good as him every time he met them. He never lost a battle or a siege.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Wrong. Scipion wasnt briliant general like Hannibal, he defeated general using Hannibals tactics against him. Hannibal fought many enemies, such as Gauls, Iberians, Romans and Numidians. He was allied with Macedonians. Best general Alexander fought was Memnon from Rhodes, and, Poros maybe. I have admiration of Alexander because he defeated the Scythians (who according to legend, were unbeatable until that moment).
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Scipio wasn't a brilliant general? Is that why he never lost a battle and was able to beat all of his enemies, including Hannibal's brothers in Spain, Hannibal himself, and Antiochus the Great? Lmao. Memonon of Rhodes, Spitamenes, Bessus, and Porus were the best generals Alexander faced. They were not easy generals to go up against either.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Scipio was good, but not genius like Hannibal. Bessus, or Artaxerxes V (if you like) was good schemer, but he havent got the chance to face Alexander. 99% is chance that he would be pwned in battle. Memnon was best Alex's enemy.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac I would say Scipio could go down as just as good as Napoleon. There are some historians who think so. Of course Bessus would get destroyed by Alexander in battle... everyone was. Bessus waged guerilla war against Alexander, like Spitamenes, so that is why Bessus goes as the best he fought. He was the only one able to cut off supplies from Alexander from time to time. He also had to chase him across the Hindu Kush.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Hindu Kush...Hundu Kush. The only place where Alexander was halted. But how you can defeat enemy who is 50 meters above you and pounding you with stones, arrows, spears and snowballs? Even with those Ilyrian mountain-climbers.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The Hindu Kush wasn't where Alexander was halted. He was halted in India.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 no, no I mean that mountain pass where Alexander was halted (I think that he was halted for few days) and then he found some weird way to smack Persians.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alexandros1294 I dont make claims on someone's generalship based on their sexual preferences. Just.. would you like to a faggot be your leader? :) Hannibal discerned his wife's needs and satisfied them
with the utmost skill and the utmost courtesy. But Alex probably sent his wife
to a man who can give her what she wants.
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 you know, scipion never lost an battle too. But Napoleon did number of them.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Napoleon didn't have that many defeats on his hands. He fought many more battles than Scipio, however. It's hard to compare generals that are so far apart in time.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 yep. and napoleon had to fight russians during the winter. thats crappy job.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac The only good general Hannibal ever went up against was Scipio Africanus. Fabius was too scared to fight him. None of the Roman generals Hannibal went against even had experience in war. They were just the consuls that led for a year.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac When did I say he didn't get pissed at Tyre? For one, he was going to take it anyway because it was a vital port that the Persians used, and yes, he did drag Batis, who was very much alive, around the city of Gaza on a chariot, just like ACHILLES. The Persian Empire was under a good consolidated rule however after Darius III took the throne. The chaos had ended.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 He got pissed because people of Tyre kicked his ass (before he built bridge and swarmed the city). He got pissed because Batis who fought him bravely and Alexander wanted to be new Achiles (lets put aside that Achiles havent existed, just like Santa, Thor and Bono). Darius took the throne of weakened empire. You know that story that Alex cried when he found out that Dar was killed? Those tears were fake. Yep he was realy sad because he kicked the Persians for good XD
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac He got pissed at Tyre because they wouldn't surrender when he first arrived at the city. He was pissed at Batis for resisting him. You're getting the story wrong again. Alexander didn't cry at Darius' death. He covered his body with a cloak and gave his body full honors. You're really quite stupid when it comes to Alexander.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Halicarnassus resisted his invasion too, but he didnt crucified the population. Batis gave him great ressistance ( outnumbered, yes) and Alexander was pissed at him. Alexander shed fake tears just to astonish persians. I wonder why he didnt dragged him in chariots? I am maybe stupid, but then facts are stupid. And you are quite impartial and intolerant when some shares his own opinion that is opposite of yours. Tell me, who is the best guitarist of 20th century?
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Halicarnassus was where Alexander beat Memnon. He gave Batis the opportunity to surrender, and he didn't take it. Alexander made examples of those who resisted him, but those who surrendered were treated with magnanimity. Alexander truly did have genuine respect for Darius III. He didn't shed fake tears, he respected an adversary. I'm not impartial or intolerant to those with different opinions, just intolerant to those making stupid opinions with no base.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac If you said Napoleon was a better general than Alexander, then I would be on the fence about that. I could actually take you seriously then. But you've shown that you're very ignorant on the subject of both Hannibal and Alexander, so in that case, I have a right to be an ass.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 I must sleep now. We will continue our argument tommorrow.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 I don't think that there was 20 000 persians but 250 000? lol... I would say, 47 000 greeks vs 60-70 000 persians. Alexander was gay (you can see that even in this movie, from which came your knowledge) Don't say in public that Achilles existed. It's for your own good. People will laugh at you. I like Feanor very much but i cant say that he existed just because i like him. Are you from USA?
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Alexander wasn't gay. There isn't even evidence for that. In fact, there's more evidence that points away from the common misconception that "Alexander was gay" than evidence that points in the direction that he was. It's very likely that Achilles did exist. There's evidence of it. The Persians had 250,000 at Gaugamela. Alexander was outnumbered enough that the enemy battle line was miles longer than his own.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad The Persians were crowded to the point where they couldn't maneuver as well as they had liked to. With only 70,000 to work with, they would have had plenty of room to maneuver, which wasn't the case at Gaugamela. I've seen the battle site.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad The Greeks weren't even gay. Some were, but it was mainly in Athens and Thebes where that went on. Not in Macedonia.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@uzickismrad Basically homosexuality in Greece is like it is in the US today. It's there, but it's not a major part of society like everyone tends to think it is.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 Zivojin Misic is better general than Alexander. Read something about him..
uzickismrad 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294 When Philip started to rule, he had Greece as enemy. Sparta, Athens, Thebes. And Ilyrians too. And Thracians. Philip built empire for 20 years, conquering enemy, one by one, manipulating, and, of course defeating Greek alliance at Chaeronea. After that battle, Greece was relativly easy to pick. Alexander destroyed weakened Thebes later. Philip built army ;from the hillmen he made phalanx. Alexander led veterans to Asia.
uzickimajmunac 1 year ago
@uzickimajmunac Philip spent too much time in politics and diplomacy. I'd say he was just as good of a general as Alexander was, just not as quick.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
the soundtrack of this movie was one of the reasons why alexander became my favourite movie, and alexander my favourite history hero.
Destruction555666 1 year ago
awesome song. pure awesome
SHADOWFREAK55 1 year ago
MACEDONIA IS GREEK! ALEXANDER THE GREAT IS GREEK!
He said so himself!
Alexander is my HERO!
theAthenianHoplite 1 year ago
bellissima colonna sonora!!!!!
atlante1ify 1 year ago
Don't make propaganda and steeling the Macedonian history!
You have your own Greek history and don't steel the Macedonian one!
forevermkd 1 year ago
@forevermkd Shut up. Macedonia is Greek. Greeks have stolen nothing. You have stolen Macedonian history. Go read Herodotus you uneducated piece of Slavic shit.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294
Things are far more complex than that,Indo-Aryans were a component of Greece,Macedonia,and Thracia,and the slavic culture is the "direct descendant"of the Indo-Aryan one.
This is all a immense salad.
StellandBlood 1 year ago
@StellandBlood Uh huh... The Aryans migrated everywhere. There are plenty of people that can be considered 'direct descedants.' Macedonia was a very Greek Kingdom, as was Epirus.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294
Macedonia wasn´t Greek,it was rather a brother country,result of very similar processes.
StellandBlood 1 year ago
@StellandBlood Yes it was. Robin Lane Fox, Peter Green, NGL Hammond, Donald Kagan, Mike Roberts, Bob Bennett, Alan Fildes, Adrienne Mayor, Thucydides, Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Polybius, Livy, Paul Cartledge, Guy Maclean Rogers, Lewis V. Cummings, and several other historians, would kick you in the balls right now for saying that.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294
Macedonia is pretty much Greek:
"Their tradition, as described in ancient Greek historiography, traced their origins to Argos"
sieskuhh 1 year ago
@forevermkd steel is what are swords made from, thieves are stealing
Kokosiak1 1 year ago
@Kokosiak1
I am from Salonika and he is maybe some my grand grand father.... do you think I am steeling the history of some guy from Crete?
forevermkd 1 year ago
@forevermkd I don't care about macedonian or greek history, I am just telling you to use correct words when speaking english.. macedonian word "краде" means "steal" in english, "steel" is "челик"
Kokosiak1 1 year ago
I so love this movie and there music! <3
SorayaLobbezoo 1 year ago