[Wael El-Manzalawy]

First of all, Muslims are not always repsentatives of Islam. I invite you to study Jihad during the era of the Prophet Muhammad -may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him-. Why do you consider Alexander, Caser and Napoleon as great military leaders but you are against the Jihad of the Prophet Muhammad? We want to settle disputes without military actions but military actions existed throughout the human history up till now. The Prophet Muhammad was a great military leader. The stastics show that the number of the people killed during the wars of the Prophet Muhammad is very limited in contrast to the others' wars.

[noemon]

I'm not familiar with the military achievements of the Prophet Muhammad. Can you provide a good reading source or link about them?

Alexander is considered the greatest commander in history because he took a force of 30000 infantry and 5000 cavalry and he attacked the Persian empire with it, he faced 2 mega Persian armies 3-4 times the size of his own & defeated them both. The feat of taking such a small army and conquering all that he did without ever losing a battle is quite breath-taking. His boldness, courage & determination has not been matched since in history. His expedition is mind-boggling because he somehow managed to convince not just his soldiers of certain victory, but almost an equal amount of scientists, botanists, geographers, historians, philosophers, tradesmen and even whores to follow him in the conquest of the world with an army of 30k.

Only Napoleon ever came close to having similar achievements as Alexander as he also crushed armies 3-4 times the size of his own several times over and like Alexander, Napoleon was the one on the offensive which is the breathtaking part of it all.

Can you imagine a guy having 3 mates and taking his 3 mates to attack a gang of 20 totally convinced of victory? It's mind-boggling.

Ceasar was not as inspiring or grand but he was meticulous & efficient as a commander. He also succeded the conquest of Gaul with a very tiny army and his victory at Alesia fighting on 2 sides 2 armies 6 times the size of his own is a source of real wonder.

However, unlike Napoleon or Alexander, Ceasar was not fighting professional soldiers or armies, but barbarian tribes with very little cohesion and technology.

Mohammed was defeated at his first battle by the Greeks and 3 years later he died without having conquered any territory outside Medina. It was his successors Abu Bakr, Umar & Walid that achieved Islamic victories in the field of war.

[Wael El-Manzalawy]

Hi noemon
I invite you to read this article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr

[Wael El-Manzalawy]

Hi noemon
I invite you to read this article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Tabuk

[Rich]

Why do you consider Alexander, Caser and Napoleon as great military leaders but you are against the Jihad of the Prophet Muhammad?

Well the Prophet Mohammad is not really even a certain historical figure. Even with Constantine, who lived in the spot light of history, there are many things we are uncertain about. But there were certainly some great military achievements of the early Arab and Muslim conquerors deserving greater examination. I quite like the Kings and Generals site. here's their Early Muslim Expansion play list

The stastics show that the number of the people killed during the wars of the Prophet Muhammad is very limited in contrast to the others' wars.

Statistics can be questionable for even current events, I'm rather sceptical of the quality of any such claimed statistics.

[JohnRawls]

I'm not familiar with the military achievements of the Prophet Muhammad. Can you provide a good reading source or link about them?

Alexander is considered the greatest commander in history because he took a force of 30000 infantry and 5000 cavalry and he attacked the Persian empire with it, he faced 2 mega Persian armies 3-4 times the size of his own & defeated them both. The feat of taking such a small army and conquering all that he did without ever losing a battle is quite breath-taking. His boldness, courage & determination has not been matched since in history. His expedition is mind-boggling because he somehow managed to convince not just his soldiers of certain victory, but almost an equal amount of scientists, botanists, geographers, historians, philosophers, tradesmen and even whores to follow him in the conquest of the world with an army of 30k.

Only Napoleon ever came close to having similar achievements as Alexander as he also crushed armies 3-4 times the size of his own several times over and like Alexander, Napoleon was the one on the offensive which is the breathtaking part of it all.

Can you imagine a guy having 3 mates and taking his 3 mates to attack a gang of 20 totally convinced of victory? It's mind-boggling.

Ceasar was not as inspiring or grand but he was meticulous & efficient as a commander. He also succeded the conquest of Gaul with a very tiny army and his victory at Alesia fighting on 2 sides 2 armies 6 times the size of his own is a source of real wonder.

However, unlike Napoleon or Alexander, Ceasar was not fighting professional soldiers or armies, but barbarian tribes with very little cohesion and technology.

Mohammed was defeated at his first battle by the Greeks and 3 years later he died without having conquered any territory outside Medina. It was his successors Abu Bakr, Umar & Walid that achieved Islamic victories in the field of war.

To be fair, Alexanders accomplishments are very impressive but they are very similar to Caesars for very similar reasons.

Alexander inherited a reformed army with advanced tactics and trained soldiers from his father. Caesar also inherited a reformed army with advanced tactics and trained soldiers after the Marian reform. The Gauls of France and Persians didn't really adapt to the new reforms. The basic idea behind Alexanders victories is strong sarisa pike centre with specialised sword fighting infantry on the sides of the centre and flanks covered with companion cavalry. Caesar inherited the new legionary system that still employed the manipular formations to a degree and added Gaulic cavalry for skirmishing and raiding. The core advantage that both had was a very disciplined and unbelievable strong and unbreakable centre. Their armies were also taught how to supply themselves and live off the land. So enemies who were not crushed by the weight of the central force were then destroyed by hammer and anvil manoeuvres by both Alexander and Caesar.

The main difference of core advantage between the two is that Romans also liked their engineering works a lot but that is perhaps due to them being in a later dates of history where it mattered a bit more. Caesar also regularly won with 2-3 times the number disadvantage. Caesar can be considered greater of the two though because he not only defeated the Gauls but also other Roman armies with 2-3 times disadvantage.

Actually it is a pattern that repeats through history but perhaps not on such large scales besides Napoleon. For example when Prince Eugene of Savoy under the Habsburgs destroyed the Ottomans with 2-3 times less forces, it was very similar. Or the Swedish empire at its prime always employed a small force of very heavily trained and armed infantry who were regularly outnumbered 2-3-4-5 to one and came out always victorious until Peter the Great finally obliterated their elite force to shreds under Poltava.

[noemon]

Alexander inherited a reformed army with advanced tactics and trained soldiers from his father. Caesar also inherited a reformed army with advanced tactics and trained soldiers after the Marian reform.

Indeed, they both had at their disposal very capable military units.

The Gauls of France and Persians didn't really adapt to the new reforms.

Comparing the disparate Gallic tribes to the Persian Empire in 350 BCE is pretty much the same as comparing sub-Saharan tribal armies to the US military. You could say that the Pygmy tribal armies have not really adapted to the new US reforms of unmanned drones and it would be true but not necessarily important information. That is pretty much the same distance that separates the Gauls at the time both from the Romans and from the earlier even Persians.

Ceasar was running around Gaul killing tribe after tribe after tribe with impunity at no loss for several years before the Gauls unified to counter him but they were still as disorganized as it gets.

Moreover, it was not the phalanx that won the day in Persia but Alexander's cavalry(and in most cases his own self) and it was not the legion that won the day in Alesia but the Roman engineering works and trenches essentially fortifying themselves and fighting from a defensive position. The Persians had been successfully fighting against the Greek phalanx for at least 2 centuries prior to Alexander and had fought and successfully occupied Macedonia several times. The Gauls had not even seen a Roman before.

As Ceasar himself informs us, when he came face to face with Alexander's statue in Spain, he fell down to tears for having achieved so little compared to him.

[JohnRawls]

Indeed, they both had at their disposal very capable military units.



Comparing the disparate Gallic tribes to the Persian Empire in 350 BCE is pretty much the same as comparing sub-Saharan tribal armies to the US military. You could say that the Pygmy tribal armies have not really adapted to the new US reforms of unmanned drones and it would be true but not necessarily important information. That is pretty much the same distance that separates the Gauls at the time both from the Romans and from the earlier even Persians.

Ceasar was running around Gaul killing tribe after tribe after tribe with impunity at no loss for several years before the Gauls unified to counter him but they were still as disorganized as it gets.

Moreover, it was not the phalanx that won the day in Persia but Alexander's cavalry(and in most cases his own self) and it was not the legion that won the day in Alesia but the Roman engineering works and trenches essentially fortifying themselves and fighting from a defensive position. The Persians had been successfully fighting against the Greek phalanx for at least 2 centuries prior to Alexander and had fought and successfully occupied Macedonia several times. The Gauls had not even seen a Roman before.

As Ceasar himself informs us, when he came face to face with Alexander's statue in Spain, he fell down to tears for having achieved so little compared to him.

Majority of Caesars and Alexanders victories were due to the fact that their centre was always stronger and could hold under ridiculous circumstances. It didn't even matter if it was an attack or defence. Sure, cavalry and engineering did its part in several battles when it was critical but it was not even close to majority of the time.

You truly underestimate the gauls too much. Rome was sacked by the Gauls and the whole reason why the Marian reform was initiated was because of the Gaul and other Barbaric preasure on the Roman republic. Marian had to defeat two large Barbarian hordes to prevent more constant barbaric incursions on Roman territory that before the Marian reform destroyed several consular armies if I remember correctly. There was fear that sack of Rome 2.0 was incoming.

Caesar cried at the statue because of his age and what he accomplished at that time(not ruling a large chunk of the world) but in reality he and his successor created an empire that didn't collapse the millisecond he died.

[noemon]

Majority of Caesars and Alexanders victories were due to the fact that their centre was always stronger and could hold under ridiculous circumstances. It didn't even matter if it was an attack or defence. Sure, cavalry and engineering did its part in several battles when it was critical but it was not even close to majority of the time.

You truly underestimate the gauls too much. Rome was sacked by the Gauls and the whole reason why the Marian reform was initiated was because of the Gaul and other Barbaric preasure on the Roman republic. Marian had to defeat two large Barbarian hordes to prevent more constant barbaric incursions on Roman territory that before the Marian reform destroyed several consular armies if I remember correctly. There was fear that sack of Rome 2.0 was incoming.

Caesar cried at the statue because of his age and what he accomplished at that time(not ruling a large chunk of the world) but in reality he and his successor created an empire that didn't collapse the millisecond he died.

The Gauls is such a blanket term that becomes meaningless after a point because the Romans used it as "anyone from the North" indiscriminately. Celtic tribes in the vicinity which had already been pacified were much stronger than Celtic tribes in the interior and north of Europe but however you look at it, the reality is that Ceasar was killing Gaulic tribes living in primitive villages with impunity. He did not face down an army for quite a long time.

I think it is quite clear that you underestimate Mesopotamia, Persia, the Caucasus, and the Indus Valley. These areas cannot be compared to Northern Europe at the time who was the equivalent of modern sub-Saharan Africa.

The fact that you are using the arrogant but "Alexander's Empire collapsed upon his death" as proof that Ceasar even compares to Alexander as a military commander is just evidence of bias because the structure of the Roman & Alexandrian Empires is irrelevant to the military achievements of either one. Furthermore, Alexander's Imperial holdings did not collapse upon his death but expanded even more and established direct Greek rule for the next 3-6 centuries depending on the area and even further when the Roman empire officially changed its administration language to Greek. The eastern Roman Empire was not an accident of fortune, nor was the fact that the Alexandrian Greek part outlasted the Roman part for 1000 years.

The Roman state survived as a Greek state for the majority of its existence.

Modern Greeks revere both Ceasar and Alexander with equal measure but one cannot compare fighting against the cradles of civilization in Mesopotamia, Persia and the Indus Valley at their prime with fighting Gallic tribes that had no concept of writing let alone of science or engineering.

[JohnRawls]

The Gauls is such a blanket term that becomes meaningless after a point because the Romans used it as "anyone from the North" indiscriminately. Celtic tribes in the vicinity which had already been pacified were much stronger than Celtic tribes in the interior and north of Europe but however you look at it, the reality is that Ceasar was killing Gaulic tribes living in primitive villages with impunity. He did not face down an army for quite a long time.

I think it is quite clear that you underestimate Mesopotamia, Persia, the Caucasus, and the Indus Valley. These areas cannot be compared to Northern Europe at the time who was the equivalent of modern sub-Saharan Africa.

The fact that you are using the arrogant but "Alexander's Empire collapsed upon his death" as proof that Ceasar even compares to Alexander as a military commander is just evidence of bias because the structure of the Roman & Alexandrian Empires is irrelevant to the military achievements of either one. Furthermore, Alexander's Imperial holdings did not collapse upon his death but expanded even more and established direct Greek rule for the next 3-6 centuries depending on the area and even further when the Roman empire officially changed its administration language to Greek. The eastern Roman Empire was not an accident of fortune, nor was the fact that the Alexandrian Greek part outlasted the Roman part for 1000 years.

The Roman state survived as a Greek state for the majority of its existence.

Modern Greeks revere both Caesar and Alexander with equal measure but one cannot compare fighting against the cradles of civilization in Mesopotamia, Persia and the Indus Valley at their prime with fighting Gallic tribes that had no concept of writing let alone of science or engineering.

If you don't want to acknowledge Caesar victories against Gauls because Gauls are somehow less warriors than Persians then what about Ceasars victories with same disadvantages against fellow Romans, Egyptians and Pontus (Are they Greek enough?).

Okay, lets also discount the administrative achievements, fine since Alexander copied the Persian satrap system while Ceasar technically had it already built by the Roman Republican and he only reformed it with Octavian finishing the job so Caesar can't take all the glory for that.

Rome survived in the east because eastern provinces have been historically way more richer than the Western provinces excluding Italy itself. East also has the main money maker and food maker of the Roman empire - Egypt. So the odds were a bit stacked against the western half. This disparity is easily shown at the end of Augustuses rule when Egypt was making around 200 million cestercies in taxes per year while Gaul was 20 million. The whole of the East put together was also around 200 million.(Excluding egypt) The importance of Egypt is underestimated actually this clues in on the topic a bit.

Byzantine empire started a steady or very fast decline(depends on how you look at it) when the Muslims managed to conquer Egypt. Muslims also understood the importance of Egypt and drained it of money and resources to a large degree to fuel their further conquests basically using it as a cash grab for more expansion. Hence the anti-Muslim revolts when Byzantines tried to retake Egypt. But as historians put it, it is more to do with Abu Bakrs inept appointed leadership or need than with general Muslim administrative reasoning. AL AS never got the province that he conquered and he complained plenty that the province was misused.

[noemon]

Dude, I am not discounting Caesar’s achievements in any way. I just think he comes second to Alexander and Napoleon as a military commander.

The Greek King of Pontus was an upstart facing an established and much stronger Roman Empire. The Greek Empire of Egypt was in terminal decline and fell without a fight. Some Greek kings willed their Kingdoms to Rome.

Ceasar was a brilliant military commander and an exceptional political operator who is revered in Greece for putting the foundations for the longevity of the Greco-Roman civilisation.

Persia, when Alexander attacked her was at its prime, it possessed a 350k professional army, and a very efficient bureaucracy, 350k professional armies were not seen again until Napoleon.

Alexander set off to accomplish an impossible task and he did. Such was his charisma that Darius' mother committed suicide when she heard of Alexander's death. Ceasar did not pursue impossible tasks, he operated within the realms of the possible. Napoleon also set impossible tasks and defeated the combined armies of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Great Britain several times over.

The Byzantine Empire was in such “decline” that reconquered the west twice, survived for an extra 1000 years, established Roman law and currency in Europe and fought off the Muslims, Mongolians, Slavs, Avars, Germans, Bulgars, Khazars, Sassanids and a whole host of others.

[JohnRawls]

Dude, I am not discounting Caesar’s achievements in any way. I just think he comes second to Alexander and Napoleon as a military commander.

The Greek King of Pontus was an upstart facing an established and much stronger Roman Empire. The Greek Empire of Egypt was in terminal decline and fell without a fight. Some Greek kings willed their Kingdoms to Rome.

Ceasar was a brilliant military commander and an exceptional political operator who is revered in Greece for putting the foundations for the longevity of the Greco-Roman civilisation.

Persia, when Alexander attacked her was at its prime, it possessed a 350k professional army, and a very efficient bureaucracy, 350k professional armies were not seen again until Napoleon.

Alexander set off to accomplish an impossible task and he did. Ceasar did not pursue impossible tasks, he operated within the realms of the possible. Napoleon also set impossible tasks and defeated the combined armies of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Great Britain several times over.

The Byzantine Empire was in such “decline” that reconquered the west twice, survived for an extra 1000 years, established Roman law and currency in Europe and fought off the Muslims, Mongolians, Slavs, Avars, Germans, Bulgars, Khazars, Sassanids and a whole host of others.

Fine, i just wanted to debate history a bit. A rare opportunity on pofo nowadays.

Regarding the decline of the Byzantines though, well they mostly kept loosing territory after Egypt with back and forwards here and there. How is that not a decline?

[noemon]

Regarding the decline of the Byzantines though, well they mostly kept loosing territory after Egypt with back and forwards here and there. How is that not a decline?

Much worse can be said for the western part of Rome and for any Empire in history. I think you ought to study Byzantium a little bit more deeply. Byzantium warps time and this warping leads to misunderstandings because people move in phases and in this case centuries represent a single phase which is not true for any other state most people are familiar with.

The loss of Syria and Egypt to Islam was indeed a massive blow as these were core territories almost entirely inhabited by Greeks after 1000 years of unbroken rule there.

Nevertheless, Byzantium still produced effective military commanders, had global reach, redesigned itself a few times administratively and survived with dignity very potent enemies like the Muslims, the Golden Horde, the Slavs who were forces of nature. It managed to convert the Russians and the whole of the Slavic world consequently bringing it firmly within the bossom of the Empire, eventually expanding its influence & cultural footprint all the way to Japan.

You said earlier the Greek East was richer than the Roman West, even when you take Egypt out of the picture, the Greek East was richer because it was a lot more unified, cohesive, integrated & efficient than the western part. The western part went through an economic crisis the very moment it stopped the wars of conquest, peace was destructive to the western Roman economy without booty flowing around and peace was unsustainable for its economy. This is the kind of longevity that matters. The Greek East on the other hand resembled a modern nation-state from early on and died as a nation-state rather than as an Empire of various peoples. It maintained its cohesion & economy during peace and war alike.

Rome recognized from very early on that the Greek element is overwhelming and cohesive in the East and actively pursued policies of Hellenization for conquered territories in the east instead of policies of Romanization as in the west and north of Europe.

This is all down to Alexander.

When a state grows rich and strong, adjacent peoples start taking notice, they start copying and catching up with the strong one. Rome was tested by the Gauls on the north and fell the very moment they got sufficiently organized, she was unable to keep a sustainable border at the face of constant attacks. Byzantium on the other hand went through this test again and again and again, plenty a time and kept its core borders sustainable for an extra 1000 years against an insane amount of groups up to and including its own allies.

You can see these core borders clearly because when the Persian Sassanids were totally defeated in 628 AD, the Byzantine Emperor just demanded these core borders in a gracious status-quo ante. He just wanted what was Roman before the Persian invasion despite the fact that he was the total victor.

Funny/ironic turn of history that they would both be attacked by the newly found Islamic Arab Muslims with Persia falling in its entirety and Byzantium losing these core territories of Syria, Egypt and Cyrene but still holding modern Turkey, Armenia, Georgia and parts of Syria in the East.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine ... 2%80%93628

Byzantium outlived Charlemagne's Empire which was western empire 2.0 and also outlived the German Otto's Empire which was western empire 3.0 all the while receiving tribute and honours from these copycats.

Byzantium outlived 3 separate versions of the western Roman empire by 3 separate peoples, the Romans, the Franks and the Germans.

[Rugoz]

Alexander and his father were barbarians that ended the classical period. Fuck them.

[noemon]

Classical Athens fell to Sparta and then to Thebes before falling to Macedonia and then to Rome. The Theban General Epaminondas was one of Alexander's tutors along with Aristotle.

[JohnRawls]

Alexander and his father were barbarians that ended the classical period. Fuck them.

Hmmm, not really. Athens and Sparta was already not the same Sparta and Athens that you are thinking off. Phillip actually introduced a lot of Athenses science and technology to Macedonia. That is the reason why Macedonia became so strong.

Here you go:

[noemon]

Alexander also promoted the Athenian vernacular over his own Doric(.ie Spartan) vernacular.

The Koine/Common language that Alexander created to facilitate his Empire is based on the Ionian dialect and alphabet instead of the Doric dialect and alphabet.

This may not mean much to you but consider that the Macedonians asserted their Doric ancestry as a matter of pride, spoke the Doric idiom and used the Doric alphabet in all their inscriptions up to that point which was the same for Byzantium, and other cities along the coast there, Sparta, most of southern Italy and plenty more. The Doric alphabet is basically what people identify as the Roman alphabet, while the Athenians used the Ionian alphabet that was more spread across the Aegean islands and coast of Asia Minor(aptly named Ionia) which is the current Greek alphabet.

Alexander's choice to use the Athenian one was a significant move on his part to Athenianise but that made sense to him because of the Athenian literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Greek_alphabets

[Rugoz]

Theban and Spartan hegemonies were short-lived and incomplete.

I couldn't care less about conquests and great empires. Those squabbling Greek city states have produced more of value.

[Patrickov]

I couldn't care less about conquests and great empires. Those squabbling Greek city states have produced more of value.

Conditionally correct: If you discard "marketing" as production of value that is.

For example, until the rise of the United States, English was not as in widespread use as now.

Greek culture might be splendid, but without Alexander it would probably not be so widespread and well known even now.

[Potemkin]

Conditionally correct: If you discard "marketing" as production of value that is.

For example, until the rise of the United States, English was not as in widespread use as now.

Greek culture might be splendid, but without Alexander it would probably not be so widespread and well known even now.

Indeed. Alexander was an excellent "marketer" of Greek culture, in the same way that the Prophet Mohammed was an excellent "marketer" of the Islamic faith.