Here are my choices for great leaders of antiquity:
1- sargon of akkad
2- naram-sin
3- senacherib
I am interested in your choices:
1- sargon of akkad
2- naram-sin
3- senacherib
I am interested in your choices:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Add Hammurabi: he succeeded in outliving and outbluffing all his rivals, in the end creating the very first Babylonian Empire.
About Naram-Sin: wasn't he the weirdo-king that left his empire to live at some oasis where the most important shrine to the
Moon-God(ess?) Sin was? If so he squandered his realm.
You also have Ramses II, Cyrus II the Great, Alexander, Trajanus.... and many more.
Tuthmosis, Nebuchadnezzar................
Still, I'll stick with the troika:
Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Cyrus the Great though may deserve the title of "Greatest Empire Builder".
Still, I'll stick with the troika:
Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.
Cyrus the Great though may deserve the title of "Greatest Empire Builder".
If you're going Military leaders, add Epaminondas. One of the first real innovaters on battle tactics.
If political, add Hadrian, my pick for best Roman emperor.
If political, add Hadrian, my pick for best Roman emperor.
Hadrian is a good pick, as he had the common sense to realize that the empire was overstretching.
In purely military terms, Philip the I and Alexander of Macedon (I refuse to call him 'the great') were probably the most successful.
Judas Maccabeas deserves a nod for leading a hopelessly outnumbered and under-equipped Hebrew revolt to victory against the Selucids
In purely military terms, Philip the I and Alexander of Macedon (I refuse to call him 'the great') were probably the most successful.
Judas Maccabeas deserves a nod for leading a hopelessly outnumbered and under-equipped Hebrew revolt to victory against the Selucids
alexander the great i would say.ceasar of course,and that is almost all i know for this period
I'll take the sadly underrated Scipio Africanus.
As well as Alexander the Great, Phillip I of Macedon, Cyrus the Great of Persia and Caesar.
As well as Alexander the Great, Phillip I of Macedon, Cyrus the Great of Persia and Caesar.
Oooh, How could i forget those:
The Roman-Germanic general Stilicho (or something like that) who fought and defeated the Huns. If there was one person who could have stopped the Western-Roman Empire from toppling it would have to be him.
Bellisarius: the most important general of Justinianus the Great. He's presides just on the edge of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle-Ages. Fighting in the East and the West to reunite the Roman Realm. too bad the wars did more damage than good and severely weakened the Empire, making resistance to the Arab hordes impossible (even with Heraclius' reforms)
The Roman-Germanic general Stilicho (or something like that) who fought and defeated the Huns. If there was one person who could have stopped the Western-Roman Empire from toppling it would have to be him.
Bellisarius: the most important general of Justinianus the Great. He's presides just on the edge of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle-Ages. Fighting in the East and the West to reunite the Roman Realm. too bad the wars did more damage than good and severely weakened the Empire, making resistance to the Arab hordes impossible (even with Heraclius' reforms)
I didn't want to mention him, but since someone else was nice enough too, Yes, he deserves to be here. Rome's greatest military leader, and a shrewd politician too.
I figured that would get you crawling out of the woodwork
I'd like to know more about Epaminondas of Thebes. Any suggestions on books?
Thanks.
Wonder why nobody mentioned Augustus, after all he did finally bring peace to Rome.
A great statesman, and fierce politician.
Alexander the great is properly the greatest military commander, yet I would say that it is a drawback that his empire fell right after his death.
The thing is that a good leader should always secure the continuation of his empire, and Alexander newer did this.
Still in my book, he should be up there among the greatest no matter what.
All the problems with not having found a successor might also be because he died all to young, making the problem time rather than anything else.
Bellisarius, he was a great general, to bad Justinian (I refuse to call him great) was afraid of him and kept moving him from one campaign to another.
Honestly we could go on and on like this, antiquity was full of great men.
I am a fan of Hadrian myself, and agree that the Empire of his time need a period of peace.
Unfortunately I do see it as problematic that his successors followed up on his defensive policy, that would later be a mistake.
One of Rome’s biggest problems, was a long northern border (making it hard and expensive to defend).
The only solution to the problem would have been a conquest of Germania and Dacia, combined with a Latinaisation of these new provinces (like in Gaul).
It would have been incredibly hard, problematic and costly, but in the end I think it might have saved the Empire from collapse.
A great statesman, and fierce politician.
Alexander the great is properly the greatest military commander, yet I would say that it is a drawback that his empire fell right after his death.
The thing is that a good leader should always secure the continuation of his empire, and Alexander newer did this.
Still in my book, he should be up there among the greatest no matter what.
All the problems with not having found a successor might also be because he died all to young, making the problem time rather than anything else.
Bellisarius, he was a great general, to bad Justinian (I refuse to call him great) was afraid of him and kept moving him from one campaign to another.
Honestly we could go on and on like this, antiquity was full of great men.
I am a fan of Hadrian myself, and agree that the Empire of his time need a period of peace.
Unfortunately I do see it as problematic that his successors followed up on his defensive policy, that would later be a mistake.
One of Rome’s biggest problems, was a long northern border (making it hard and expensive to defend).
The only solution to the problem would have been a conquest of Germania and Dacia, combined with a Latinaisation of these new provinces (like in Gaul).
It would have been incredibly hard, problematic and costly, but in the end I think it might have saved the Empire from collapse.
I find it hard to believe the empire could be saved by expansion. Where do you stop? The Rhine-Danube was probably the best defensive barrier they could hope for. Contraction is what the empire needed. It should never have gone into England (Claudius's fault), some have argued not even Gaul. An independant, subsidiary state in Gaul would not have lost its warlike spirit that Roman Peace caused it to loose. They would then have been able to defeat the Germans before they reached Rome.
Of course, it's too late by Hadrian.
Good point about Alexander. Although He probably wasn't expecting to die, it didn't help that he killed his second in command, and let the remaining generals duke it out. BTW, was Alex IV born before or after his death?
Of course, it's too late by Hadrian.
Good point about Alexander. Although He probably wasn't expecting to die, it didn't help that he killed his second in command, and let the remaining generals duke it out. BTW, was Alex IV born before or after his death?
I must strongly disagree, his idiocy precipated the Jewish War (bar-kokba revolt) in 132-135. Some of the best emperors were the dissolute ones who did nothing and let the senate run the empire.
I agree with you here, as your name says it all. Scipio Africanus the younger was brilliant as well. My name comes from De amicitia where cicero has laelius praising his friendship with africanus the younger.
enttaeuscht
I must say I am disappointed that no one mentioned:
1- Lugalzaggisi (sumerian)
2-ashurbanipal (assyrian)
I must say I am disappointed that no one mentioned:
1- Lugalzaggisi (sumerian)
2-ashurbanipal (assyrian)
Well speaking for myself, i find the earliest stuff intrigueing, but it dont roll of my mind, i need to look it all up, probably its because of the unpronuncable names, if your into this period i found N Guild, The Assyrian to be a great read, set in the reign of Easherhen(sp?).
Hannibal
Hannibal
Of course Chin (my chinese is unfortunately underdeveloped) the first chinese emperor, the creator of china and the first great wall.
Also China derives its name from him.
I also miss Ramses 3(I think 3) of Eqypt
Also China derives its name from him.
I also miss Ramses 3(I think 3) of Eqypt
Its out of print and hard to come buy. I will keep trying. I am interested in ancient near east.
From the raising of the first war club to the atom bomb, war is the same story.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0689118740/002-7899948-0996040
So i see, yes it is worth finding if you can.
Hanny
So i see, yes it is worth finding if you can.
Hanny
Rhine-Elbe, as Augustus at the least planned-considerably shorter, and giving greater defensive depth to the western Empire. As for Britain, the mistake probably was not completing the job and taking out the Picts etc. permanently. After all, three legions (for a while four) and numerous auxilia was a major commitment of Imperial force, and if assimilation had worked, could surely have been reduced, if not as far as in Spain's case (which was reduced to one legion.)