[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: 5{nally posted by Helspanth: @Yoric I disagree with your view of Alexander. He was never defeated in battle and accepted the customs of the civilazations he conquered.IMHO he was THE greatest general to ever walk this planet so far.

I'd call being killed in battle being defeated.
On the general matter, agreed. He was obviously a great motivator, problem solver, and strategist, as well as showing exeptional management skills.

However those skills were geared towards destroying peoples lives. Not good. Destroying human achievements - cities, cultures. Not good. Killing his own citizens, by leading them into unecessary conquest. Not good.

Secondly he totally failed to set up an infrastructure that suceeded him. His empire fragmented immediately.

I simply fail to see why we should see Genghis Khan as a monster (the Mongolians see him as a hero) yet Alexander Great. How do Persians or Indians see Alexander? As a Hitler?

The winners write the history. The Greeks called him great. We call him great.

If we want to change human concepts regarding war then history needs to be reflected on with current values. War is a cancer. At times a vile necessity. One which should be avoided, and when necessary, viewed with distaste, not glorified.

A general who DESTROYS is nowhere near as great as the humble painter or chef who CREATES or the mother of a child.
That is greatness. Commonplace? Of course. But why should that which is rare be 'great' simply because of it's scarcity? Great things are found everywhere.[/QUOTE]Great post once again Yorick
I think that he didn't set up much for his successors because he was rather narcisstic and was probably convinced of his invincibility, as some of the great strategists do.
I think this is when they lose that title, for a truly great strategist has to keep a firm grip on reality, for example knowing when to withdraw.