04-12-2007, 02:09 PM
As far as I can tell, the single most important quality of these 'great generals' is a whole lot of good fortune. Some guy and his friends go on a criminal rampage, and when he isn't killed immediately we call him 'great'. What exactly did Alexander do to improve civilization? Become the new Xerxes?
Take Hannibal for example. Everything he did was extremely rash. Very often taking his troops to battle in inferior numbers with no supplies. That's not what a great general does. He stumbled into a series of unlikely victories so we assume there was something special about him other than his willingness to take huge risks and hope for devine favor. Well, guess what, his luck ran out and his culture was snuffed out for all eternity. All because of his hubris! Great commander? Not in my mind.
I strongly tend to prefer commanders who, faced with these kind of megalomaniacs on their own soil, conduct themselves with courage, wisdom and caution. I'd sooner follow Fabius Maximus or even Leonidas rather than die for Alexander's ego.
Take Hannibal for example. Everything he did was extremely rash. Very often taking his troops to battle in inferior numbers with no supplies. That's not what a great general does. He stumbled into a series of unlikely victories so we assume there was something special about him other than his willingness to take huge risks and hope for devine favor. Well, guess what, his luck ran out and his culture was snuffed out for all eternity. All because of his hubris! Great commander? Not in my mind.
I strongly tend to prefer commanders who, faced with these kind of megalomaniacs on their own soil, conduct themselves with courage, wisdom and caution. I'd sooner follow Fabius Maximus or even Leonidas rather than die for Alexander's ego.
Rich Marinaccio
