Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Alexander the Great conquered the world by the age of 18 or whatever

He was also, by all accounts, a twat. He killed his friends in bouts of rage. He was a brilliant strategist, but he did not really build anything that lasted. Some slivers of his empire survived, but not because of his actions. He might have lived the life he wanted, we will never know for sure. But I would much rather live the life I have, however imperfect it might be.

> Am I a better man than him?

Are you happy? Do you make other people happy? Do you support or help other people when they need, or side by them when they want? Those are more important metrics than the surface area conquered at the cost of tremendous suffering.

We remember people for their accomplishments, not because they were good as human beings.




He wasn’t a brilliant strategist. He got lucky and was an absolute monarch.


I can accept that, depending on where you put the limit between tactics and strategy. He was good at wining battles and campaigns. He was bad at picking people to run the countries afterwards.

No question that he was both lucky and a despot.


1. He never lost a battle and conquered more territory than anyone in history, all while leading from the front. He's considered the greatest military leader in history by most every other great military leader in history (are you a better judge?)

2. Many of the Diadochi (his bros) went on to great success, and he picked all of them.

People love to be contrarian but it can get ridiculous. Claiming that Alexander the great wasn't actually so great is just boring.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: