Post Your Pic!

[che]

fangleader said:

both sucked balls compared to Alexander.

Yes, yes and yes

Alexander would have never made such a tactical mistake like invading Russia at the worst possible time of the year, a thing you can almost forget to Napoleon but the fact that Hitler repeated it is just plain stupidity IMHO.

[Syd 3.0]

che said:

fangleader said:

both sucked balls compared to Alexander.

Yes, yes and yes

Alexander would have never made such a tactical mistake like invading Russia at the worst possible time of the year, a thing you can almost forget to Napoleon but the fact that Hitler repeated it is just plain stupidity IMHO.

Napolean's invasion of Russia made perfect sense, with the facts that were available to him. And Alexander did make a large tactical mistake.

[IceJedi5]

Russia pulled of a tactic it had used for a couple of previous wars. They used it on the Mongols. Largest empire ever. Short lived though. Still one hell of an empire.

[Prisonner Of Today]

I don't think anyone can really compare to Alexander. Lots of people have taken over big portions of land (see Gengis Khan, Attila The Hun, Napoleon, Hitler, etc.), but how many have been considered a deity?

[Syd 3.0]

Any dictator could have himself recognized as a God. Anyways, not to change the subject but judging Napolean by the land he conquered is like judging the Ghandi by his vegetarianism. The fact that Hitler (I asked a history professor and he confirmed it) and Alexander conquered more land doesn't change the fact that Napolean was the 2nd greatest military leader of all time.

[Specialist290]

Indeed... I think I remember reading somewhere that Napoleon said that he had fought and won more battles than Alexander, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar combined. That's probably an exaggeration, but if you read accounts of his battles, it's surprising how many he did win in the face of apparently overwhelming odds.

Furthermore, you also have to consider that much of Western European law is based on the law code he developed to rule his empire. He's also indirectly responsible for the German and Italian unification movements that followed less than 50 years after his reign ended.

[Syd 3.0]

He's still only the 2nd best military leader of all time, though.

[Specialist290]

True.

[IceJedi5]

I'm not sure if Napoleon is responsible for German or Italian unification movement, I'm going to have to research that now, sounds interesting. I do know that the men who pulled of those 2 unification where pretty amazing people.
My vote is still on Alexander, the man spread much of the Greek's ideas into the world. Founder of the Hellenistic period. Without him spreading these ideas into the east, the chances of a renaissance period would have been greatly diminished.
I do know that Napoleon had some pretty revolutionary tactics. Didn't the guy who beat Napoleon at Waterloo use Napoleon's tactics on Napoleon?

[zombieslay3r]

I have a headache now from reading your history stuff.

[Animatronic Daemon Skwerral]

not even really good history either. it reminds me of who would win a fight anne frank or lizzy borden.

[IceJedi5]

History was/is the only class I truly found interesting.

As for the fight, I did some wiki research on Lizzy. Did the henchmen figure out who would win? My vote is on Lizzy.

[Specialist290]

icejedi5 said:

I'm not sure if Napoleon is responsible for German or Italian unification movement, I'm going to have to research that now, sounds interesting. I do know that the men who pulled of those 2 unification where pretty amazing people.

Well, even if the two countries would have united eventually, Napoleon certainly sped up the process by sweeping away numerous old, decrepit institutions (the Holy Roman Empire being the biggest example) and consolidating the thousands of petty city-states and minor patchwork fiefdoms into more unified, larger territories. He also imported the idea of French-style modern nationalism, which promoted unity through a common heritage, language, etc. (which, ironically, was later turned against him). Then again, as I mentioned before, there was the Code Napoleon, which replaced all those thousands of homegrown feudal legal codes with a single template.

And yes, Bismarck and (the Italian guy whose name escapes me at the moment...) were indeed some pretty shrewd statesmen.

My vote is still on Alexander, the man spread much of the Greek's ideas into the world. Founder of the Hellenistic period. Without him spreading these ideas into the east, the chances of a renaissance period would have been greatly diminished.

You're certainly correct in that regard--I'm not even going to debate that point

I do know that Napoleon had some pretty revolutionary tactics. Didn't the guy who beat Napoleon at Waterloo use Napoleon's tactics on Napoleon?

I'm actually not really sure... I haven't studied the battle of Waterloo in too much detail (ironically), but I do believe I read somewhere that it was the use of infantry squares that broke the last desperate charge of his Old Guards, so I think you're correct.

[Animatronic Daemon Skwerral]

my money would also be on lizzy because we dont have any idea of ann's weight size or fighting abilities. one thing to hide from Nazis, its another to fight a fat woman with an ax.

[IceJedi5]

I guess we'll just have to bring back the armies of Napoleon and Alexander to settle this once and for all.
Agreeing with Animatronic Daemon Skwerral, I am.
I just remembered something. Didn't the guy who pulled of the Italian unification was asked by Abraham Lincoln to lead the Union's forces?