Alexander would whoop this overrated sissy Italian so hard

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, Alexander would absolutely destroy an opponent with an army specifically designed to counter the phalanx.

    Brilliant analysis my dude.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No he wouldn't because he was long dead by that time

      Gauls and Germans didn't exactly fight in phalanx formation

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, but the Romans other Italians did before they adopted the manipular legion.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The phalanx actually held up well against the maniple when fully deployed and was even able to push them back . The problem is that the Macedonian phalanx is a single factor in a combined arms approach to warfare. If the cavalry doesn't deliver the hammer to the phalanx's anvil it on it's own can't deliver the killing blow. So it comes down to if alaxander's cavalry is better than Caesar's.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Underrated take

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, He'd be outflanked by Hetairoi, retreat with heavy losses, but with cohesion intact. He would then blame the defeat on his troops, like he did at Gergovia.

      Alexander was never defeated. Caesar was. End of.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Adversity reveals the genius of a general. Good fortune conceals it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >more with less
            Alexander was the son of a great king whose life's work was to build the finest army of its time, and he succeeded. Had it not been for Philip, Alexander would never have reached such heights.
            Caesar by contrast requested to be given the most troublesome province to govern (not to rule as a king), he then plunged himself headlong into ruinous debt to raise a ragtag army of raw recruits and barbarians; which he, partly through delegation and partly through his own charisma and leadership forged into a force to be reckoned with. He then diplomatically forged alliances and played Gaulish tribes against one another, using his own legions to steal victory in decivise battles. His use of the terrain and the skill with which he waged psychological warfare on his enemies, and strengthened the morale of his own troops, has been admired by kings, generals and statesmen for two thousand years

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Caesars legions was not something he invented on the spot either! Both commanders benefited from having others before them form an army and doctrine that worked.
              Also, Alexander very much did go into debt launching his campaign, however that's besides the point, because we are not rating these people on how good politicians they were, but how good commanders they were.

              Alexander is the winner there, for the simple reason that he would win battles and wars that he had no business winning. And he was fighting the top empire at the time, still at its peak. Caesars accomplishments were great, but not on the same level.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can see we will have to agree to disagree. Alexander, with all the power and authority of a king, was handed an army that was his father's Magnum Opus. He pitted this army, and its magnificant staff, against a crumbling empire that relied on a money to sustain itself, and was desperately short of money. Caesar by contrast was given provinicials, working class Cisalpine Italians and foreign "allies" as his army. His father had died while he was still a boy and his support staff were as yet nothing special. He decimated Rome's longest standing enemies beyond even his contemporaries expectations. He then proceeded to usurp the highest office of the Roman Republic to the roars of the Roman people. Alexander would be missing Caesar's arse had they been born in the same time

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Alexander would be missing Caesar's arse had they been born in the same time
                In politics, probably. On the battlefield, no.

                But I'm happy to agree to disagree. As long as we can agree that both are superior to Hannibal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Absolutely, but Hannibal would still squash 90% of the generals in recorded history, the man had big fucking balls

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Alexander, with all the power and authority of a king, was handed an army that was his father's Magnum Opus. He pitted this army, and its magnificant staff, against a crumbling empire that relied on a money to sustain itself, and was desperately short of money.
                Lel Philip's army was literally defeated by the Persians at Magnesia before Alex arrived to take over. You would know this if you were not a retard who just watched Youtube videos poorly summarizing ancient and modern sources instead of actually reading them. For example, Diodorus Siculus mentions this defeat in Book XVII of his masterwork, starting around 17.7. Now go back to jerking off your tiny Italian American penis instead of pretending to be a historian. I'm

                >But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage.
                >To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
                Non sequitur.

                Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Alexander never lost a single siege, and the Romans lost some sieges. Alexander marched from Greece to India starting with just the resources of Greece, the Romans at the height of their power with uncontested control over all the resources of the Mediterranean couldn't pass from Asia Minor to the Zagros Mountains. As for the specific sieges, Alexander killed all the men in the cities who resisted him and sold the rest into slavery, but you're pretending the Roman conquests of the same area centuries later is as impressive. The logical conclusion of this argument is that you also believe the Frankish conquest of the area in Gaul that used to have Alesia is just as impressive as Caesar's siege of Alesia, and that the Frankish conquest of where Geronium was makes them better besiegers than Caesar. But of course, you don't believe that, because this is all mental gymnastics to pretend the Romans produced any military figure on par with Alexander. You shift the argument to suit your case, and not the other way around.

                btw, not

                Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I've read commentaries on Alexander's life and conquests, don't get so high and mighty. So Phillips army suffered a defeat, so what? They went on to conquer the known world, what's your point? Show me an army that has aspired to the same heights and never known defeat

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I've read commentaries on Alexander's life and conquests
                Yeah buddy, sure you have. Rest assured, I completely believe in the honesty of this statement to match the sincerity of the rest of your post. Now we can both leave the conversation happy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao you treat a book like it's this indecipherable lexicon. Get a fucking grip lad, people have been reading books for millennia you're not special

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Caesar/Napoleon success rate
            >90%, 100%
            Which is which

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nah, Alexander 100. Caesar + Napoleon 90% (Take that with as much salt as needed, not an actual calculation)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Alexander suffers his first defeat
                >wails and rages like a little bitch
                >Caesar suffers his first defeat
                >sends an emissary to convey his respect of their ferocity, and makes them his vanguard in conquering their fellow Gauls

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Caesar WAS a genius. I put him on par with Napoleon. But we're comparing a 90% success rate to a 100% success rate, and are discussing which is better. Alexander conquered more with less, and never suffered defeat. Clearly he was the superior general. Caesar was a better politician and propagandist, though.

              He's saying Alexander was the 100% success rate, and Caesar/Napoleon the 90%. Napoleon and Caesar actually have practically the same success rate because Caesar lost quite a bit (Gergovia, Dyrrhachium, Ruspina, arguably at least one of the invasions of Britain) with fewer total engagements, but of course Caesar's losses counted for less.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >an army specifically designed to counter the phalanx
      brainlet detected, also reddit spacing

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alexander: 5’0
    Caesar: 5’7
    MOGGED

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Alexander: 5’0
      >Caesar: 5’7
      Propaganda, 2000 year old Italian cope.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Caesar would've risen to the top even if he were born into completely different circumstances, Alexander was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Alexander was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time
      He was the right person, at the right place, at the right time. The guy was a genius too.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      While Caesar wasn't born into as fortunate circumstances as Alexander, he was definitely afforded a lot of fortune's better side.
      Like being a descendant of the Julii/Marius, having the opportunity to harness the power of one of the most effective military institutions the world had seen up until that point in history.
      I do think Caesar had greater wits than Alexander but who knows what Alexander would have matured into or could have achieved if he lived to the same age as Caesar.
      Both of them, in their own way, were standing on the shoulders of giants and became giants themselves - nothing in history ever happens in a vacuum.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Julii had to flee the proscriptions of Sulla and by the time of Gaius had fallen on hard times and were reduced to living in a rented urban apartment. All having an ancient family line did was allow him to campaign on being descended from Venus

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well that's precisely the point, being the legendary descendant of a goddess is like +10 to charisma where the superstitious Roman masses are concerned

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            True, but then again superstitious retards aren’t exactly hard to trick. Pisistratus, the Tyrant of Athens, got the people on his side by finding the tallest woman in the land and dressing her up as Athena and then claiming that she actually was Athena who totally wanted him to break the law in order to forcefully seize power

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Chad as fuck

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He would just keep digging and fortifying

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lol, and? Alexander was the greatest besieger in history. Alex would trap the Italian inside his fortifications and mop up the corpses after a month or two.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Name a siege of Alexander's more impressive than Alesia

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tyre.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1km long, 200m wide causeway after a 7 month seige, with your army at full strength but being delayed in the early stages of it's campaign
            or
            >30 miles of 2 separate rings of fortifications, simultaneously defending from both a sortie and external attack, all with numerical inferiority, at the risk of your entire campaign

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Turning an island into a peninsula is cooler.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then Dubai naggers would beat both of them

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sogdian Rock.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Every single one, because besieging a horde of buttrubbing Gallic barbarians in their village is not impressive. Maybe impressive for Caesar, because he somehow managed to lose to them once before. Alexander took real cities, and your argument is that Caesar would have built better ad-hoc fortifications in the couple of days he had to prepare than the city walls of Tyre or Halicarnassus, built and refined over centuries. Not to mention Alexander would cut off Caesar's supplies, so he would need to either stockpile food or order his men to charge into the Macedonian phalanx in its peak condition. The best case scenario for Caesar is that he finds an opening and runs away with part of his army.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >batman would swoosh! and throw batarang with cryptonite pew pew and then he would jump and boom! kapow! and Superman would be lying on the ground helpless. Then they'd have gay sex with and they’d ask me to join and I’d be like m- me? But they’d make me feel welcome and we’d have an awesome orgy! and Wonder Woman would join us

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nice fanfic but I'm not a marvel fan so I don't understand the relevance. Maybe >>>LULZ is more your speed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the npc is characterized by the lack of self awareness, a key fundamental trait of a human being

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who are you quoting?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >quoting
                go back

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those "buttrubbing Gallic barbarians in their village" were far more martial and war like than any of the peoples alexander even fought
            It was gauls who introduced the gladius, chainmail and rectangular shields to the romans
            They were extremely trained/skilled and used as mercenaries everywhere in the known world

            So yeah what caesar did was indeed impressive even if i like alex too

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's putting it mildly. Rome considered them their most ancient and feared enemy while despising Greeks as effeminate boyfuckers. Gallic Cavalry were considered the finest in the world, to the point where Romans didn't even bother fielding domestic cavalry, they just hired Gaulish horsemen. Even Greeks eventually caught on to the brilliance of mail armor, though too late in their history to reverse their decline.

              In Roman arenas, gladiator classes were commonly based off of POWs, often still fighting in the kit that they were taken prisoner in, with hoplomachus growing out of Greek hoplites and Thraex growing out of Illyrian POWs. Gaulish POWs were initially dubed Gallus, and were considered a heavily armored class, and they eventually grew into the Murmillo class, literally "fishmen" in direct reference to their heavy scale armor. Tacitus even notes that the Crupellarius class gladiator were Gauls "encased in the continuous shell of iron usual in the country". Far from being naked savages (that's more a 2nd Punic War thing) they were among the finest warriors in the ancient western world, and Caesar's victory can be attributed not to brute force, but his uncanny ability to play Gauls off of each other, literally writing the book on divide and conquer

              Alexander had the fortune of fighting a crumbling empire who hadn't get caught on to the force projecting power of cavalry, while inheriting the world class officer class that Phillip II spent his lifetime putting together. Caesar fought a wide variety of enemies, often against wildly bad odds, and was a master improviser, a fiendish backroom schemer, and had a legendary eye for finding and promoting men of talent. My money is on Julius

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Gallic cavalry was considered the finest in the world
                By the Romans and Romans alone. The vaunted Gaulic and Germanic horsemen who they brought against the Parthians and Persians tended to get horrifically decimated even by light Iranic cavalry and the Romans stopped claiming that after the early contact with the Iranic peoples. In fact I don't think a single Greek writer ever considered Gallic cavalry the best or most elite.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not that anon but wasn't it German cavalry the Romans honoured as the most fearsome, making even the Gauls unwilling to even pretend competition with them. I distinctly remember Caesar mentioning his Gallic allies being afraid of the Germans, and unable to counter them because every cavalryman had a youthful skirmishes who would keep pace with their horse and counter and harrass any attempt against the mounted man

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It was the Celto-Germanic cavalry of the Belgae that were the most fearsome in the region. Also the Roman had good cavalry themselves in the form of the Campaignians and allies.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To my own knowledge the Belgae were a famously fierce people, and a thorn in the Roman side, but not particularly renowned for their cavalry. I stress again that Caesar himself, and Tacitus too I think in his recount of the reign of Tiberius mentioned that the Germans specifically, while they may lack the heavy armour of the Parthians, were remarkably ferocious and difficult to counter because of their style of fighting, which their native land favoured ofcourse

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                According to EB they were the best of the best.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                According to EB they were the best of the best.

                What game?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Divide Et Impera and Europa Barbarorum

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kino. Still, had the Belgae truly been Mongol-tier they wouldn't have been confined to their little flatlands

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think the point was that they're mongol tier but the best cavalry in their region and surroundings.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Until you reach the Rhine that is

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                These guys were nearly as good as their Belgae counterparts

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody's denying that the Belgae had balls, but they were not a large people. The Germans posed a real threat to them, and they saw sense and capitulated to the only people capable of a breaking the Germans

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fair points I don't disagree with you really. It's debatable for sure

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                IIRC 2 separate Roman historians of 2 separate lifetimes recorded the Belgae as being particularly fierce. There is honour even in defeat, and the Belgae certainly deserve it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lol what

                You probably mean just Carrhae because thst is likely rhe only one you know

                though the few hundred Gauls at Carrhae literally fought cataphracts and killed them in at least implied significant numbers while the Roman eastern cavs were being slaughtered.

                After this there is literally not a single mention of Gallic or Germanic cavalry having issue with Persian cavalry while in Roman service.

                For fucks sake even the kings of Numidia employed Gallic cavalry.
                King Juba famously had Gauls as shock cavalry.

                I swear these pop history wikipedia hisplorians are poison

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >though the few hundred Gauls at Carrhae literally fought cataphracts and killed them in at least implied significant numbers
                not him but you're extremely low iq

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are fucking retarded. The Romans went after trying to hire or supplement their armies with Sarmatians and other Iranic horsemen to counter Parthian and Persian cataphracts. Gallic horsemen got raped in every campaign by the Parthians and Persians so badly they were turned into skirmishers and scouts.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Attacking an oppidum hillfort is way harder than attacking low placed Middle Eastern cities dumbass.

            Also Romans themselves took same Middle Eastern cities with greater ease than they did Celtic or Iberian ones when they did the same.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Also Romans themselves took same Middle Eastern cities with greater ease than they did Celtic or Iberian ones when they did the same.
              No they didn't, because Alexander destroyed the city walls of the cities he conquered. LULZtards, I swear to God. The only cities the Romans besieged in the area Alexander conquered were part of the Pontic empire or Judea, with neither area Alexander having any problems with, so if you want to draw this silly comparison then the fact the Romans had to besiege cities there at all shows their inferiority to Alexander, for Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >for Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.
                Tyre

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about the same cities the Romans besieged, retard. The Romans couldn't besiege Tyre because Alexander fucking destroyed it. Tyre was rebuilt, but it never recovered to what it was pre-Alexander, not to mention the fact that even if it did recover, any siege of the city would now be necessarily less impressive because it was a peninsula post-Alexander, not an island.

                In any case, even though Tyre sided against the Romans consistently, ultimately Rome took Tyre when Pompey offered the city a deal as a privileged free city in the Roman sphere of influence. After this, the Romans built Tyre up and turned it into the port of the Levant, which made the city extremely wealthy and grateful to the Romans, and thereby turned them into Romans. In short, Tyre didn't join Rome because it was scared of Rome, but because it was good economic sense.

                On the other hand, there was no economic incentive to join Alexander's empire. Cities already enjoyed significant autonomy under the Persians, and when Alexander came along he demanded higher taxes (to pay for his wars) and less autonomy (to feed his military machine). The cities in Asia minor and Syria that surrendered to Alexander surrendered because they were terrified of him and his military, not because Alexander offered them a square deal. That shows how mighty Alexander was, and how pathetic the Romans were in comparison. Alexander would wipe out any Roman army easy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or everyone would see they better off with the Romans and side against Alexander and his youthful vanity. If it came between pledging loyalty to Rome or to Macedonia anyone with any sense would choose Rome

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Alexander would wipe out any Roman army easy.
                And then there would be another. And another. And another. And then everyone is gabging up on ol' alex because he cannot be in 10 places at once.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even for the handful (and that description is being generous) of cities whom Alexander demanded tear down their walls, the Romans did not arrive in the area until 300 years later. More fool them if within 10 generations they neglected their own defenses. But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage. To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But even if that were true, which it's not, the Romans were renowned the world over for their expertise in siegecraft, they themselves took open pride in it and their generals and soldiers were well aware of this advantage.
                >To say that the Romans were inferior to anyone in matters of siegeworks is delusion, plain and simple
                Non sequitur.

                Anyway, the fact of the matter is that Alexander never lost a single siege, and the Romans lost some sieges. Alexander marched from Greece to India starting with just the resources of Greece, the Romans at the height of their power with uncontested control over all the resources of the Mediterranean couldn't pass from Asia Minor to the Zagros Mountains. As for the specific sieges, Alexander killed all the men in the cities who resisted him and sold the rest into slavery, but you're pretending the Roman conquests of the same area centuries later is as impressive. The logical conclusion of this argument is that you also believe the Frankish conquest of the area in Gaul that used to have Alesia is just as impressive as Caesar's siege of Alesia, and that the Frankish conquest of where Geronium was makes them better besiegers than Caesar. But of course, you don't believe that, because this is all mental gymnastics to pretend the Romans produced any military figure on par with Alexander. You shift the argument to suit your case, and not the other way around.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                With respect I say you have misrepresented my point, and strayed off topic with less than basic knowledge. Alexander was remarkably merciful, Caesar *arguably* more-so but that's besides the point. Alexander reigned over his empire for 11 years was it? The Romans had many generals, you cannot tally up the defeats of one man's short life against the defeats of a hundred generations.
                Alexander was *arguably* the finest military figure in human history aye, in that he appeals to every class of man, from the cook to the general, being a Herculean archetype; but Caesar is something different altogether. Caesar dwarfes other men as your own post well reveals. His achievements are uncontestable for the average man, in contrast to Alexander, and yet Caesar was devoted to the people and Alexander was not.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Caesar dwarfes other men as your own post well reveals
                ESL

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I went to a grammar school homosexual, I was entirely correct.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Alexander made the same cities submit to him by merely passing by.

                Most of them were happy to submit because it meant they were rid of the Persians.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Caesar would just keep digging more

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alexander would seethe at his fortifications.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    caesar is relentless

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Alexander at his death
    >I'll leave my empire to the strongest
    >Empire collapsed
    >Caesar at his death
    >Adopts my boy Octavian
    >Made the Roman Empire

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      collapsed
      >"our based tetrarchy"
      >"their cringe hellinism"

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >after 4 years
        >after 4 centuries
        Yeah totally the same

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It was also Caesar and Augustus who took down the last remaining Alexandrian successor kingdom

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Taking down a crumbling empire on its last legs, ruled by a military incompetent, is impressive

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, Alexander really is overrated

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nonetheless, he certainly deserves fame and admiràtion

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He didnt go down in history as Alexander the Good or Alexander the Decent. There is a reason for that.

                Every general worth their salt that came after Alexander studied his wars. There is a reason for this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's called Parmenion

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                UHH NO HE WASNT THAT GREAT HE WAS ONLY GREAT BECAUSE PEOPLE SAID HE WAS GREAT YOU BIGOT

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It was also Caesar and Augustus who took down the last remaining Alexandrian successor kingdom

                Romans never conquered Persia, cope with it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You missed the point.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That statement sounds retarded as fuck.
    I mean, Caesar had better army than Alexander (more soldiers+monipular system), so how can we imagine their "fair" battle?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Caesar’s legionaries did not use the manipular system that defeated the Greek phalanx, they used the cohort system which was an upgrade

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My dad would kick your dad's ass

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    three walls

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >nobody even mentions Dyrrachium
    All of you are a bunch of pseuds and schizoids. Please pick up a book and take your meds, it's for your own good

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alexander wouldn't be able to conquer Gaul, just like how he pussied out with the Pajeets

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone knows since the Battle of Marathon that the Persians are no match against the Greek Phalanx. I really don't understand why Alexander's campaign is really that impressive. The Persian Empire was also at its lowest point by the time he arrived.

Your email address will not be published.