Btw, the ancient consensus was that Alexander wasn’t good, he just had weak competition
-
-
Replying to @buellerevsky
200 men, dude... Pizarro was like Xenophon, Alexander, and Leonidas wrapped up into one
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @buellerevsky
That’s impressive too, Norman reconquista was très fort; but Pizarro was up against 50,000 in a strange, hostile land an ocean away from home. There’s no gold in Sicily
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @buellerevsky
The empire Pizarro built was on the geographic scale of Alexander’s (check dimensions of viceroyalty of Peru), vastly more profitable, lasted longer, and he did it with 100 infantry and 60 caballeros
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @buellerevsky
the “alexander had weak competition” was more to point you to further reading - ppl in antiquity who knew their shit thought roman generals and institutions could crush Alexander, but Alexander was more original
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Possibly yes - I think that was the heart of the ancient debate tho (whether ppl who studied Alexander had surpassed him, or only a pale imitation)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.