Submitted by Flares117 t3_zyyxk1 in todayilearned
Reply to comment by Obvious_Swimming3227 in TIL: Zhu Youcheng is the only emperor in Chinese history, to be married to one wife and remain faithful to her, having no concubines. He was a hardworking emperor, lowering taxes, reducing spending, and demonstrating tolerance for Muslims. His son, however, had a haram so large, some starved. by Flares117
Except Phillip of Macedon. His son proved far greater than he could hope to be.
There was a quote, I can't remember where I read it and paraphrasing it "Will Alexander still be considered "Great" if his empire fragmented before he died?"
Sure Alexander was an able conqueror but administering an empire as large as he carved is another matter. It literally fragmented at his death bed.
Also begs the idea if Heraclius is gonna be considered one of the "Greatest" Roman Emperors if he died a year or two before the Rashidun Caliphate undid his victories.
Alexander was the greatest conqueror in history, but he was not really a great king. He was basically his mom's puppet in Macedon and had to try to conquer new lands before he could consider himself sovereign....and then he screwed things up due to his Persophilia and so his generals took over after he died.
In fact, they may well have helped him along by poisoning him, but that's not confirmed.
Highly likely one of his Companion Generals poisoned him. His father was assasinated too after all.
With regards to being the "Greatest" Conqueror, I rate Genghis a little bit higher than Alexander, who also happened to be a great administrator.
The Mongols had a LOT of conquerors though. There was only one Alexander, but there were dozens of great Mongol generals.
And to make things better, the Mongol Empire coalesced at precisely the time when the Number 1 breaker of steppe empires, China, was in no position to fight them thanks to a horrible civil war and the dumbest goddamned Dynasty to ever rule the country.
It also helped that the other great horse riding empire, the Muslims, were basically in pieces at the time. So the Mongols could easily defeat them one at a time.
They weren't quite as lucky when fighting empires that were perfectly fine tho. The Indians beat them so easily that they barely even remember fighting them at all. The Vietnamese utterly humiliated them, hilariously so.
Tell me more about this dumbass dynasty
Song Dynasty. Idiots literally funded the Mongols after Genghis Khan died, which should have led to the empire collapsing, and then got attacked once the Jin had been destroyed by the Mongols.
Their own military also sucked, because the entire court was basically working for the enemies, and the generals constantly had to relay each battle's strategy to the court even when the battles were days away, which mean they almost always lacked any initiative.
If it had been literally ANY other dynasty, they could have finished the Mongols off. It's not like Genghis Khan was the first steppe conqueror China had faced. But the Song constantly kept snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and ensured all of China got conquered by foreigners for the first time in history.
It's a southern dynasty, so of course they would be run by incompetents and assholes who put themselves above all else.
You have to be more specific. The basic story of China is about 6000 years of a cycle of a competent emperor coming to power, each successive emperor in the dynasty is worse than the last, it gets to a point where the emperor is a legendary assclown, horrible things happen to the Chinese people, and then a rebellion/coup happens and there’s a new emperor.
But he died 33 years old without any heirs
Alexander did have a son who succeeded him. But the boy got killed and his kingdom usurped by a treacherous regent named Cassander right as he was old enough to take over.
That's just a normal occupational hazard for dynastic children.
As much as I love Phillip II, Frederick William I of Prussia and Frederick the Great nailed the "kingdom building father" and "empire conquering son" combo so much better. Not as flashy, but a little longer lasting.
Frederick was a warmongering lunatic though, and only survived because of sheer luck.
Prussia then proceeded to follow his example of having basically no strategy asides from "ATTACK!!!", and ignoring anything beyond tactics.
Well tbf he inherited his father’s army (with all of its crack discipline and veterancy), his father’s plans, and a fortuitous group loyal advisors and friends. Some speculate that Alexander was actually rather dangerously reckless, all things considered. His greatness can be attributed to the successes of his father and an extraordinary amount of luck.
Nah, he was pretty awesome. But yeah, he would have ended up like Napoleon if not for his dad leaving him that army.
There is a high probability that his son played a roll in assassinating him.
Killing hundreds of thousands of people and conquering lands doesn't make you a good ruler, especially if you can't keep the empire together afterwards.
He's great the way genghis khan is great. A world historic militarty leader. but a great emperor he was not
Genghis Khan's empire lasted for a long time compared to Alexander's.
fair enough, at least genghis had his successsion in order.
Most of Alexander’s accomplishments were basically set up by his father like the army innovations or getting Greece behind him.
Those were not his accomplishments, those were just some of the tools he used to set up his accomplishments.
I can't argue that if not for daddy dearest, Alex wouldn't have been able to start to become a great conqueror until he was in his 40s.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments