I mean, genociding the Gauls was a pretty big deal.
People really don't appreciate how fucking goated Chalemagne is until you actually research him, I had to write a paper about him in college and it ultimately made him one of my favorite historical figures. Man saved Christendom from Islam and no one fucking talks about it.
It isn't about being a successful military commander, it's about being daring and finding success in every battle, no matter how insane or bleak the odds might seem. Alexander never lost a single battle in his career. Most of them are fine, even good, but just lack the awe inspiring nature to their character. Napoleon threatened and destroyed plenty of ancient institutions and ushered in a new era based on new ideas, he did also lose a number of times and didn't achieve a total victory. Temujin Borjigin, certainly good and impressive, united a fractured people, never lost, set the stage for great conquest, but most the expansions into civilized land of the Mongol empire occurred under his successors. China was in a state of war anyway so we can't even say kicked over a huge, mostly united empire. Karl Karling did establish a united state in Western Europe and set a lot of institutions that would radiate out and last for centuries, overseeing the Carolingian Renaissance, but his military conquests were okay tbh. Took years to subdue some Germans, took a tiny bit of Iberia and kicked down the Lombard which was the most impressive, people rarely talk about. Also maybe he killed his brother? Slightly dodgy character. William being up there is honestly a joke, he took England and that's it. It took him decades to subdue it and he didn't really establish any institutions or engage in incredible campaigns. Hernan Cortes probably the closest in constitution and elan, willing to risk it all on little more than knack and knack. While a rogue for certain, I've always admired his adaptability and the fact that he fought a large empire in the rise in a land he knew nothing about whatsoever is crazy, but as he was subordinate to the Spanish Empire, he simply cannot the "the Great". Pizzaro showed up to an empire in civil war, practically denuded by disease and he was a treacher who swindled the Andeans for a ransom of the Sapa Inca and killed him anyway. Evil bastard and for that act alone should be regarded as an infamous character on the level of Judas motivated by money, not greatness.
No comment on the fact that he set up his empire for a collapse through civil war because he was unwilling to consider the future? I figure there's a decent chance that there would be centuries of Macedonian hegemony if Alexander did the very bare minimum in that department. If he had simply wrote a will at any point that read "Ptolemy is in charge if I die with no heirs", we might be arguing about Alexander's place in the pantheon of great Macedonian Emperors. I would never claim that Alexander wasn't a great commander. But he had the road paved by his father, and the empire collapsed like a decade after he took the throne.
Was there really any way such an empire stay stable after Alexander's death ? I mean, there's so much different people, all recently conquered, who would love to revolt in such an Empire. Rome needed centuries to do something like this.
Fair point but I prefer to meassure greatness also on the legacy they build. Alexander went into a great Empire and left a quarreling mess.
Except Alexander had an heir, he had a son, Alexander IV, but he was young and murdered when he was a teen before he could rule without a regent. Like sure he didn't know he'd have a boy but I'm pretty sure he knew his wife was pregnant.
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, since the only guy who was ever in that position couldn't be bothered to try. The bottom line for me is this: If your empire collapsed less than a decade and a half after you took the throne, you have no business calling yourself "The Great".
This is a point in his favor, surely. He couldn't just rely on the fact that his people had developed a military which could dominate their neighbors with ease. He proved his worth against the barbarians, then proved his genius against Pompey.
He never called himself the great everyone else did after he died.
Strictly speaking, he did have heirs, a brother, cousins, a bastard son, and his unborn legitimate son. I don't think a long-term Macedonian rule was tenable as it stood though, given the institutions of the Macedonian kingdom and Greek Hegemony, which Alexander clearly recognized, given he so quickly adopted and promoted orientalizing institutions of government and rule, which is born out by the fact that the two successors that stood the test of time and were the most successful were by far the most orientalizing: Ptolomy and Seleucus, who built their administrations on Kemetizing and Chaldonianizing/Iranizing respectively (Seleucus was certainly Alexander's ideological successor given he went to great lengths to continue his imperial ambitions of a culturally mixed state based out of Mesopotamia and was the sole one to not divorce his mandated Persian wife).
Is it still available ? Asking for a friend.
Sadly, no, and I doubt Trump would do it either, thus proving that he cannot be considered a "Great".
I don't consider a fetus of indeterminate sex to be a good heir. I'm not dogging on the guy for his lack of sons, I'm dogging him for a lack of future planning. If he laid out a succession plan where Ptolemy would be regent until his chosen relative could rule, that would be a different story. But just ignoring the impact your death would have on your empire as you adventure around the world and throw yourself into enemy formations isn't the mark of a great ruler. It's interesting, it's admirable, I wouldn't have the balls or talent to do a quarter of the things Alexander did, and neither would most humans ever born. I guess my main point is that I don't consider someone to be a great businessman if they inherit a company from their dad, and it declares bankruptcy a decade later. I don't care if the stock value skyrocketed during your short tenure at the helm, I measure your success by the state of the company when you retire.
I know, I was speaking rhetorically. I don't think Alexander is browsing the thread, despite typing as though I was speaking to him directly.
Enlist now, your Persian war bride awaits!
IIRC, the whole "Everyone is fascist except us" was a Soviet propaganda plot. It worked so well leftists still believe it to this day.
The anti-Nazi resistance in Europe as a whole was mostly composed of reactionary, monarchist and nationalist forces. I'm not sure about the exact amount, but I think the amount of monarchist among the De Gaulle resistance army after his Appeal of 18 June was almost half of them.
I know we live in 2026 world but how will whatever school district he works for as a sub feel learning is fedposts on main?
Seleucus Nicator was arguably the most successful of the diadochii as well given the amount of territory from the Empire he managed to hold. People can argue that Ptomely was more capable but he only occupied and maintined control in the peripheral territory outside of Egypt. Seleucus was dedicated to restoring and cobbling together the entire empire Alexander conquered and was essentially only stopped from that ambition by the logistical nightmares that was a bunch of Hellenic warlords involved in shakey alliances and constant warfare.
He was also very cowish. We know how he lost his virginity because he recorded the encounter (with a prostitute, who got so fed up with him beating around the bush she had to ask him when they were actually going to have sex) and dissected it like it was a science experiment. And then everything with Josephine.
Nah, this was pretty impressive. The speed of Alexander's conquests and the initial internal stability the Diadochi enjoyed was partly because Alexander was able to inherit most of the Achaemenid architecture and populations that, by that point, were used to being ruled. Charlemagne not only did what the Romans repeatedly failed to in the face of greater adversity and strategic disadvantages, he held onto his gains and turned it into the nucleus of what would later be one of the most prosperous parts of Europe.
Notable that he has the best epithet of the diadochi: the victorious, which is appropriate given he both won most of the time and was the SGOAT (Second Greatest of All Time), so nearly all the territory (specifically the core) is a good consolation prize.
Mongols did pretty fine for centuries. So yes.
A century and a half, but who's counting? Still 15 times as long as the Macedonian Empire lasted once Alexander took over.
Let's not glaze him that much. We're talking about a major figure in the past for whom the nearest source we have is probably some 350-400 years after him. It's like if the nearest source we had about the Great Turkish War or the Great Northern War was written today - nuance would be lost in favour of a narrative, which is something seen repeatedly and throughout history - just take a look at the Roman Kingdom - historians blankly dismiss the Roman sources for that period. They're not reliable sources and we have no reason to treat them as such, the Greeks were not beyond self-praise and self-aggrandizement and Alexander, especially, seems to have had a massive and successful propaganda machine whose influence has been felt over the centuries.