8 ms·

Right. Napoleon had a much lengthier career, but the manner in which Alexander won is what makes him the greatest. He didn't just win the battle, he truly conqu

by jimmy1 8y ago

Right. Napoleon had a much lengthier career, but the manner in which Alexander won is what makes him the greatest. He didn't just win the battle, he truly conquered your entire civilization and turned you into his asset. Alexander didn't have the need to fight so many battles, and he avoided them whenever possible. Napoleon had 60 battles (probably more), Alexander, much fewer. An analogy in my mind is calling LeBron James and his career longevity the greatest over Michael simply on career length alone. In my mind, the manner in which Michael dominated, and going 6-0 in the NBA finals is what makes him clearly the best.

tynpeddler 8y ago
I think you have to look at the environment in which Alexander fought, compared to Napoleon. Alexander fought in a world that was sparse and heterogenous. His enemies were unable to learn from their failures and they were not able to adopt the means of Alexander's success. Alexander fought asymmetric wars were he benefitted from the asymmetry. Napoleon fought on a continent that had effectively been locked in a military stalemate for over 200 years (maybe as long as 800 years depending on how you count). The density of Europe during that time meant information about his means of victory would spread all his enemies, and the prevalence of writing helped ensure a degree of accuracy. Napoleon fought symmetric wars. He had no great advantages of culture or technology to help him. His enemies were able to learn from him and despite this he achieved incredible victories against huge numerical odds. Even his losses were incredible. The Battle of Leipzig started with Napoleon outnumbered and surrounded, then a third of his army (the germans) defected. Despite this, Napoleon inflicted more casualties then he received, and he escaped with his army in relatively good order despite the fact that an idiot colonel botched Napoleon's retreat plans.
- barkingcat 8y ago
  So maybe, just maybe, there isn't a thing such as "best general" and to try to create such a title is a misguided viewpoint on history. Not everything has a best or worst. This kind of reductionist thinking is wrong. If it's something like a "just for fun" project sure fine, but this is not the way to evaluate wars and peoples.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- globuous 8y ago
  And let's not forget that Napoleon comes right at after the French revolution. Everyone else was planning to invade France since it'd become so weak - the country was a mess. And somehow, Napoleon managed to bring it back to the scene.s I think that's where I find him the most amazing, he was given 1990s Apple and made it 2010 Apple - on the scale of a country.
goodoldneon 8y ago
Calling MJ "clearly the best" is insane. MJ had a much better supporting cast, one of the greatest coaches of all time, and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals. The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  This is common argument that comes up in the MJ debate and easily defeated. Besides, you can apply the same "supporting cast" argument to Lebron. Lebron pioneered the approach to forming super teams to chase championships in the modern NBA. That garbage is now rampant thanks to him. (Remember when David Stern blocked the trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers due to "competition concerns?" Boy that seems laughable now) (All this aside -- Lebron's a great dude, great role model, etc)
  - Zimahl 8y ago
    Lebron has been on one 'super team', the Heat. The Cavs were never even close to a super team, and the Lakers aren't shaping up to be either. I grew up watching Michael Jordan but I think the game is much more difficult now. It's much faster, and a little more physical. Adding Lebron to any team makes them a finals contender overnight. MJ didn't have much luck once he left Chicago. MJ wasn't as dominant after his prime, Lebron will be dominant long after his because of his size.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    The Chris Paul trade was blocked for "basketball reasons" because the NBA temporarily owned New Orleans at the time and didn't want to utterly destroy the value of the franchise before finding a new owner.
- philwelch 8y ago
  I think there are a lot of good points in favor of LeBron, but I still think MJ wins out, if only slightly. > MJ had a much better supporting cast To what degree were Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman "much better" than Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love, or Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and later Ray Allen? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely bullish on Dennis Rodman, but none of Jordan's teams ever had an All-Star big man, and consistently defeated teams that did (New York, Utah, Seattle, Detroit). That was especially abnormal in the late 80's and early 90's. > one of the greatest coaches of all time This is the biggest point in LeBron's favor, though Eric Spoelstra is a little underrated. There's a lot of overlap between the greatest coaches of all time (Popovich, Jackson, Auerbach, Riley) and the greatest players of all time (Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Russell, Magic, Kareem), and LeBron is the biggest exception to that. At the same time, the pre-Phil Jackson MJ was dubbed "God disguised as Michael Jordan" by Larry Bird and was clearly a wasted talent in search of a coach, team, and system that would make the best use of him. And the biggest criticism of Phil Jackson is that he's never succeeded without having either Michael Jordan, Shaq, or Kobe Bryant playing for him. Aside from the frankly bizarre end of his tenure as GM of the Knicks, Phil Jackson's greatest strength was the ability to manage the egos of passionate, erratic superstars. > and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals Michael Jordan was the centerpiece of "the most dominant team ever" for two sets of three consecutive finals. (And frankly, if you want to talk about "the most dominant team ever", you have to look at the 1957-1969 Boston Celtics, who won all but two titles during that span.) > The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami. This is a pretty good point. I think removing Michael Jordan from the league entirely led to greater parity overall, and the 1993-94 season had a lot of indications of that (three conference semifinals going to seven games, the 8th seed in the West knocking out the 1st seed in the first round, only one team below 20 wins, only one team above 60 wins). The Bulls without MJ were worth a second round exit, which isn't nothing, but a Cavs team with Kyrie and Love would have done just as well if not better, and the 2016 Heat also bounced back to a second round exit two years after LeBron left.

by jimmy1 8y ago

tynpeddler 8y ago

I think you have to look at the environment in which Alexander fought, compared to Napoleon. Alexander fought in a world that was sparse and heterogenous. His enemies were unable to learn from their failures and they were not able to adopt the means of Alexander's success. Alexander fought asymmetric wars were he benefitted from the asymmetry. Napoleon fought on a continent that had effectively been locked in a military stalemate for over 200 years (maybe as long as 800 years depending on how you count). The density of Europe during that time meant information about his means of victory would spread all his enemies, and the prevalence of writing helped ensure a degree of accuracy. Napoleon fought symmetric wars. He had no great advantages of culture or technology to help him. His enemies were able to learn from him and despite this he achieved incredible victories against huge numerical odds. Even his losses were incredible. The Battle of Leipzig started with Napoleon outnumbered and surrounded, then a third of his army (the germans) defected. Despite this, Napoleon inflicted more casualties then he received, and he escaped with his army in relatively good order despite the fact that an idiot colonel botched Napoleon's retreat plans.

barkingcat 8y ago
So maybe, just maybe, there isn't a thing such as "best general" and to try to create such a title is a misguided viewpoint on history. Not everything has a best or worst. This kind of reductionist thinking is wrong. If it's something like a "just for fun" project sure fine, but this is not the way to evaluate wars and peoples.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
globuous 8y ago
And let's not forget that Napoleon comes right at after the French revolution. Everyone else was planning to invade France since it'd become so weak - the country was a mess. And somehow, Napoleon managed to bring it back to the scene.s I think that's where I find him the most amazing, he was given 1990s Apple and made it 2010 Apple - on the scale of a country.

goodoldneon 8y ago

Calling MJ "clearly the best" is insane. MJ had a much better supporting cast, one of the greatest coaches of all time, and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals. The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami.

jimmy1 8y ago
This is common argument that comes up in the MJ debate and easily defeated. Besides, you can apply the same "supporting cast" argument to Lebron. Lebron pioneered the approach to forming super teams to chase championships in the modern NBA. That garbage is now rampant thanks to him. (Remember when David Stern blocked the trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers due to "competition concerns?" Boy that seems laughable now) (All this aside -- Lebron's a great dude, great role model, etc)
- Zimahl 8y ago
  Lebron has been on one 'super team', the Heat. The Cavs were never even close to a super team, and the Lakers aren't shaping up to be either. I grew up watching Michael Jordan but I think the game is much more difficult now. It's much faster, and a little more physical. Adding Lebron to any team makes them a finals contender overnight. MJ didn't have much luck once he left Chicago. MJ wasn't as dominant after his prime, Lebron will be dominant long after his because of his size.
- philwelch 8y ago
  The Chris Paul trade was blocked for "basketball reasons" because the NBA temporarily owned New Orleans at the time and didn't want to utterly destroy the value of the franchise before finding a new owner.
philwelch 8y ago
I think there are a lot of good points in favor of LeBron, but I still think MJ wins out, if only slightly. > MJ had a much better supporting cast To what degree were Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant/Dennis Rodman "much better" than Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love, or Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, and later Ray Allen? Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely bullish on Dennis Rodman, but none of Jordan's teams ever had an All-Star big man, and consistently defeated teams that did (New York, Utah, Seattle, Detroit). That was especially abnormal in the late 80's and early 90's. > one of the greatest coaches of all time This is the biggest point in LeBron's favor, though Eric Spoelstra is a little underrated. There's a lot of overlap between the greatest coaches of all time (Popovich, Jackson, Auerbach, Riley) and the greatest players of all time (Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Russell, Magic, Kareem), and LeBron is the biggest exception to that. At the same time, the pre-Phil Jackson MJ was dubbed "God disguised as Michael Jordan" by Larry Bird and was clearly a wasted talent in search of a coach, team, and system that would make the best use of him. And the biggest criticism of Phil Jackson is that he's never succeeded without having either Michael Jordan, Shaq, or Kobe Bryant playing for him. Aside from the frankly bizarre end of his tenure as GM of the Knicks, Phil Jackson's greatest strength was the ability to manage the egos of passionate, erratic superstars. > and didn't have to play the most dominant team ever (Warriors) for 4 consecutive Finals Michael Jordan was the centerpiece of "the most dominant team ever" for two sets of three consecutive finals. (And frankly, if you want to talk about "the most dominant team ever", you have to look at the 1957-1969 Boston Celtics, who won all but two titles during that span.) > The Bulls won 55 games during the first year of MJ's hiatus. The Cavs won 19 games the year LeBron went to Miami. This is a pretty good point. I think removing Michael Jordan from the league entirely led to greater parity overall, and the 1993-94 season had a lot of indications of that (three conference semifinals going to seven games, the 8th seed in the West knocking out the 1st seed in the first round, only one team below 20 wins, only one team above 60 wins). The Bulls without MJ were worth a second round exit, which isn't nothing, but a Cavs team with Kyrie and Love would have done just as well if not better, and the 2016 Heat also bounced back to a second round exit two years after LeBron left.