Topic: [Poll] How does Lemakasidion compare? - page 2. (Read 1938 times)
Napoleon was a good leader in terms of making people follow him. he was a brilliant military leader in that he knew how to win battles, and the human psychology that leads to military and political success.
The man brought down the greatest empire the world had seen, seemingly without difficulty and within a matter of just a couple of years, conquered most of the known world while fighting far from home, never lost a battle, led from the front, was tutored by Aristotle and maintained his passion for philosophy throughout his life, spread Greek culture across the globe … you get the idea. Oh, and he did all of this before the age of 33. Perhaps the clincher, however, is this: Julius Caesar weeped when he considered Alexander’s accomplishments.
Out of the available options, I'd say Alexander:
1) Little is known of Nimrod factually
2) Caesar was never emperor and despite his fame didn't actually conquer that much in the grand scheme of things
3) Napoleon was largely a failure and his empire crumbled away quickly
4) Don't know who "Limakasidios" is... think the OP made up this name
Meanwhile the ramifications of Alexander's conquests and empire ripple through civilization to this day.
In regards to Genghis, the ramifications of the Mongol conquests are felt throughout the world to this day as well. They reshaped China, central Asia, Russia, and the middle east, and kickstarted the ties and trade between the West and East. If Genghis had been on the list, it would have been a hard choice between him and Alexander, but as it is, Alexander is the obvious choice.
1) Little is known of Nimrod factually
2) Caesar was never emperor and despite his fame didn't actually conquer that much in the grand scheme of things
3) Napoleon was largely a failure and his empire crumbled away quickly
4) Don't know who "Limakasidios" is... think the OP made up this name
Meanwhile the ramifications of Alexander's conquests and empire ripple through civilization to this day.
In regards to Genghis, the ramifications of the Mongol conquests are felt throughout the world to this day as well. They reshaped China, central Asia, Russia, and the middle east, and kickstarted the ties and trade between the West and East. If Genghis had been on the list, it would have been a hard choice between him and Alexander, but as it is, Alexander is the obvious choice.
Alexander, no doubt about it. The guy conquered the equivalent of the globe and moon and mars if you consider the technology and means with which he had to work with, not to mention a relatively small nation being his foundation to conquering an entire empire.
Ghengis Khan was a conqueror, but not an emperor. Greek and hellenic influences are still felt throughout the middle east and even northern india today, where as mongols conquered but were assimilated completely. That disqualifies that candidate as an 'emperor'.
Ghengis Khan was a conqueror, but not an emperor. Greek and hellenic influences are still felt throughout the middle east and even northern india today, where as mongols conquered but were assimilated completely. That disqualifies that candidate as an 'emperor'.
So as to mitigate the ill effects of group think, the results of this poll are only available to those that have participated in it.
Jump to: