Temajin Four Times Bigger than Alexander

[jasonxx]

a god in mongolia

[jasonxx]

Englishmen Are Not gods, They are the next best thing. Michael Caine

[pankration]

The Khans may have had access to gunpowder as the Chinese had already invented it but they had not yet weaponized it. Genghis Khan was the ferocious leader of the hordes but it was his grandson, Kublai Khan who put a stamp on the empire. This was the man that Marco Polo travelled so far to see.

Alexander did a far better job of spreading his influence and culture even if he didn't travel as far. The Mongols are back to being herders in the desert while the Western world is more of less Hellenized.

[jasonxx]

Hail Beatriki

I would argue credid for Ghengis on 2 accounts. As far as I am aware he didnt lose a battle. Kublai Khan lost a massive armada. In an ill prepared and rushed attempt to take Japan.

One thing that gives the Khan more Credit than Alexander. Is he came from no where. He was no prince or king inherant. The guy forged a massive nation from divided tribesmen and created the most feared fighting machine ever.

Whatever we say about Alexaners heroism and warriorship. Alexanders achievements owe a lot to an accident of birth. Had Alexander been a normal Macedonian. No matter how brave or a geniius he was he would never have been king now attained such glory.

Ultimately Alexander is dirrefent to the silver spooned pussies we have as royalty in the Uk but the principle was the same. And to think out brilliant armed forces have to swear alliannce the these over fed wankers.

Kenny.

I wouldsay the Khan had as much affection from his soldiers as Alexander. And I would doubt any of his oficers would back chat as some of Alexanders commanders did. And I would very much doubt Demosthenese and his croneys would mouth of as they did.

Kenny

[pankration]

We meet again, Jasonxx. I won't argue with you on Genghis Khan's methods of rule. There is no question that insubordination was not even imagined and a Demosthenes wouldn't have got past 'hello'. The fact that Alexander was born to priviledge I don't believe belittles his accomplishments. Genghis may have been a tribesman but he was a chief and it was through his forceful personality and ferocious fighting that he united the tribes and set westward. For Philip then Alexander to do the same was even more onerous as the Greek states were kingdoms with full armies and hundreds of years of fighting to their credit. Compared to Athens and Thebes, Macedonia was the poor cousin. Philip had to create a fighting force that would conquer the proudest Greeks in the land; Greeks who had defeated Persia. You yourself said that birthright gives us "wankers" for royalty. Nothing was different then. Alexander was groomed, no question. However, out of the thousands of royals throughout the world how many rise to the forefront.
Genghis led by being the meanest bastard in Mongolia. However, his generalship, especially when he came west is undeniable. He was facing more modern cultures, with different weapons and strategies and managed to steamroll them. This is a great achievement. Why he doesn't stand with Alexander or Caesar is that he was a destroyer. He lived for destruction and left nothing behind. It was Kublai Khan who maintained the influence in China but that's where it ended.
Kublai lost his fleet in a hurricane (the Kamikaze winds). Japan got lucky.

[jasonxx]

Paqnkrat Hail

I would argue Caesar and other Roman Emperors were just as ruthless as Ghenghis. Its quoted that Caesar put overa million to the Sword in Gaul, And his treatment towards Vercengetrix was as brutal as the Khan dished out.

In many ways I feel Alexanders real weakness was his relative moderation. I do feel he was poisoned and had he been as mean as Ghengis no one would have bloody dared thinking of Wacking Him.

Demosthenese should have been nailed to a tree with the rest of his gob shites.And his winging generals shouls have had there ears felt. But I guess if Alexander was as brutal then the heroic Alexander would have been lost.

Can you imagine the Tyrians telling Gengis khan to F*ck Off. He would have been catepulting people from the old town against the Tyrian walls and there would have been a more crucifictions than Alexander was accused of. He would have burned Persepolis with the Persian Nobles still inside.

I recall a Persian King sending a Mongol Ambasadors head back to the Khan.

Kenny

Besides I would rate Khan up there with cCaesar and Alexander his empire proves that.

[pankration]

I love your writing style! You don't pull any punches. Caesar and Alexander could prove to be ruthless in the field--but as a rule they didn't destroy everything in their path. Genghis would have not only nailed Demosthenes to a tree but would have eliminated every member of his family until the "seed" had vanished from the planet.

[jasonxx]

Some scholars Argue,it would do Alexander no good at all to nail Demosthenese or to the extremes., Doing to Athens what he did to Thebes. I would say to snuff out Athens altogether and set up Pella etc as the Hellenes Capital would once and for all put Alexanders foot on Greek Hegmany. Ok there would be some belly aching but Id say just as many other Greek City states would like the Idea of Athens been put to the torch.

Athens and the Greeks were forever the pain in Alexanders arse and was always looking over his shoulder no doubt Demosthenese and his cronies were involved in egging Agis on to rise against Antipater. Sceptics argue it would do Alexanders cause or reputaion no good to squash Athens a so called centre of Democracy.

No one told the Romans that when they destroyed Carthage. I for one thing it was a signb of softness he let Athens off the hook and would have had a stronger home base to erase those Athenian parasites.

Kenny

[pankration]

Jason my friend, I'm sure you know that you're going to get a lot of comments on what you just said. Athenians=parasites! As radical as this sounds you may have a point (strategically speaking). The question that has to come up is: once Alexander left for Asia, did the Athenians present any problems in Hellas? Sure after Alexander died and guys like Demosthenes came back, Athens arose but while he was alive can we make the same statements?
Pothos regulars, any comments? Love to see what others think.

[derek]

The only time Athens threatened to do anything was when the Spartans raised an army against Antipater, but then they held back and didn't get involved. The Athenians preferred to fight using mercenaries or proxy armies. During Philip's reign, they allied with Olynthus and then did nothing when he besieged them, then they talked Byzantium and Perinthus into defying Philip and then left them to it, and then they did the same to Thebes. They were good at urging on others, but not so keen on getting involved themselves. Chaeronea was the only time their citizen army took the field.