Great captains : $b A course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and Napoleon — John Shaqi
Great captains : $b A course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and NapoleonDodge, Theodore Ayrault
History
Great captains : $b A course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and Napoleon
Dodge, Theodore Ayrault
Alexander, the Great, 356 B.C.-323 B.C. -- Military leadership; Caesar, Julius -- Military leadership; Frederick II, King of Prussia, 1712-1786; Gustav II Adolf, King of Sweden, 1594-1632; Hannibal, 247 B.C.-182 B.C.; Military biography; Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821 -- Military leade
The life-work of Philip had been transcendant. That of Alexander
surpasses anything in history. Words fail to describe the attributes
of Alexander as a soldier. The perfection of all he did was scarcely
understood by his historians. But to compare his deeds with those of
other captains excites our wonder. Starting with a handful of men
from Macedonia, in four years, one grand achievement after another,
and without a failure, had placed at his feet the kingdom of the
Great King. Leaving home with an enormous debt, in fifty moons he had
possessed himself of all the treasures of the earth. Thence, with
marvellous courage, endurance, intelligence, and skill he completed
the conquest of the entire then known world, marching over nineteen
thousand miles in his eleven years’ campaigns. And all this before he
was thirty-two. His health and strength were still as great as ever;
his voracity for conquest greater, as well as his ability to conquer.
It is an interesting question, had he not died, what would have become
of Rome. The Roman infantry was as good as his; not so their cavalry.
An annually elected consul could be no match for Alexander. But the
king never met in his campaigns such an opponent as the Roman Republic,
nor his phalanx such a rival as the Roman legion would have been. That
was reserved for Hannibal.
Greek civilization, to a certain degree, followed Alexander’s
footsteps, but this was accidental. “You are a man like all of
us, Alexander,” said the naked Indian, “except that you abandon
your home, like a meddlesome destroyer, to invade the most distant
regions, enduring hardship yourself and inflicting it on others.”
Alexander could never have erected a permanent kingdom on his theory
of coalescing races by intermarriages and forced migrations. His
Macedonian-Persian Empire was a mere dream.
Alexander was never a Greek. He had but the Greek genius and
intelligence grafted on the ruder Macedonian nature; and he became
Asiaticized by his conquests. His life-work, as cut out by himself,
was to conquer and then to Hellenize Asia. He did the one, he could
not accomplish the other aim. He did not plant a true and permanent
Hellenism in a single country of Asia. None of his cities have lived.
They were rather fortified posts than self-sustaining marts. As a
statesman, intellectual, far-seeing, and broad, he yet conceived and
worked on an impossible theory, and the immediate result of all his
genius did not last a generation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account