alexander, hannibal, and attlila

It seems that all three went down the same path defeated what was the most powerful empire of their time did not really establish their own empire for long and died shortly after.

What were the commanlites between them and the environment they lived in to cause this

Originally posted by Voskhod where he rather carelessly died.

all three rather casrlessly died

Originally posted by Voskhod The Alexandrian Empire broke apart due to: sheer size + no heir (son still not born),

The size of the area Alexander took under his control briefly was a little smaller than Persian empire he defeated. The first Persian empire lasted a couple of hundred years, so size probably was not the factor, although I have heard this point of view on some TV show/movie before

Also many kings did not have a heir. Darius III the king that was defeated by Alexander was not a direct heir of the previous king

Originally posted by Voskhod Hannibal was a different story altogether. He was defeated by a combination of factors. One was his inability to capitalise on the defeat of the Romans

Yes all three defeated the most powerful empire of their time but were not able to create a lasting outcome as the result. That was the whole point

Originally posted by Voskhod As for the Huns, the problem was they lacked the political structure to survive after the death of Attila.

Yes similar to Alexander. This is probably what you meant when you said "no heir"

 

Originally posted by Voskhod Attila's campaign was driven by the quest for tribute and plunder rather than conquest.

All three group were after the gold. They did not go after the richest entity of their time coincidentally.

Alexander’s troops did not want to go to India for the same reason Persians before them did not. Most of the gold in the world at that time was in the Persian treasury

 

Originally posted by Voskhod The Huns never did really developed their Empire into some cohesive units that might have survived the death of Attila.

dido with Alexander’s situation

 

Originally posted by Voskhod The Huns were really probably not one single group of people but rather a confederacy of several nomadic steppe and forest tribes. When Attila died, they went their own way, and was assimilated into other groups.

Same with Greeks they were not a single group let alone Macedonians and all people that were added to them along the way looking for the riches of the Persian empire

  

 

I think you actually pointed out to many similarities without realizing it

 

 

Originally posted by Voskhod However, the main players of the Alexandrian war of succession were Greek or Macedonian. The rulers of the post-Alexander Hellenistic states (with few, isolated exceptions) were Greek or Macedonian.

Simply Greeks from Macedonia not "or"...I don't think there were any other non-Macedonian Greeks ruling the Kindoms.

In Egypt the rulers were Greek, with one or two exceptions were non-royal/non-Greek marriages are suspected.

http://genealogy.about.com/library/family_trees/bl_cleopatra.htm

Unlike Egypt though, the rulers of Bactria could be Indo-Greek.




Edited by Flipper - 29-Dec-2008 at 18:40

Attila's story is indeed very tragic, yet natural. He had plenty of sons, yet, he didnt name a successor, which he no doubt, should've already done, considering his age. Some people consider this fact, when they blame him for the ultimate fall of the Hun Empire. Also, in my opinion, the Battle of the Chalon/Catalonian Fields should have never been faught. I would've retreated from the region, with all of the "booty", appeasing the troops, and faced Aetius and his allies later, when i was strong.

Edited by Penelope - 01-Jan-2009 at 04:09

Originally posted by Challenger2 Originally posted by Miller Yes all three defeated the most powerful empire of their time but were not able to create a lasting outcome as the result. That was the whole point As far as Hannibal goes Rome was in no way the most powerful empire at that time. Rome wasn't even an empire as such, more a hegemon. The Rome-Carthage 'spat' was between two relatively equal hegemonies struggling to establish a local supremacy. Much like Athens and Sparta earlier.

I think Penelope was stating what a smarter option would have been for Attila, rather than facing Aetius at Chalons. No doubt, being a semi-nomadic warlord that he enjoyed the thrill of battle, but he made a number of strategic and diplomatic mistakes that eventually led to the miscalculated loss at Chalons. I disagree that Attila was 'tactically better' than Aetius as well.

Originally posted by Challenger As far as Hannibal goes Rome was in no way the most powerful empire at that time. Rome wasn't even an empire as such, more a hegemon. The Rome-Carthage 'spat' was between two relatively equal hegemonies struggling to establish a local supremacy. Much like Athens and Sparta earlier.

Certainly. I'd be willing to say that, especially prior to the Second Punic War, the Seleucids may the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Though whilst Rome held nothing like the hegemony of Augustan Rome or the like, it was still a major player in the Mediterranean arena. I think it was a bit more than a 'spat' for local supremacy - these were definitely the two foremost powers in the Western Mediterranean.

Yes - we don't deny that it was impressive that Alexander defeated the Persians, Hannibal defeated the Romans (until Zama) and Attila defeated the Romans (until Chalons). What do you mean by a warrior type? I'm not sure that is the best way to describe Alexander and Hannibal...maybe Attila.

Originally posted by Challenger2 Akolouthos, Knights, as I see it Rome has had such a great impact on Western civilization we tend to get a bit myopic about things Roman. Rome was certainly no empire as you’ve both agreed, and was barely in control of Italy by the time of the Hannibalic war. The Republic’s ‘expansion’ had only just reached the Apennines and Rome had built only recently two colonies in the Po valley to control access to the South by the Boii and Insubres after Telamon. In the South many of the tribes were restive, and some had defected already once before, during Pyrrhus’ war. Despite Polybius’ catalogue of Rome’s huge reserves of manpower and resources, I contend Carthage was as powerful, if not more so in 218 BCE. However, I digress.

Good points - I agree that Rome was no powerhouse at 218 BC, especially in terms of its extent. Though, I think the Roman approach to politics and warfare gave the Republic a cohesion and adaptability which the Carthaginians lacked, thus putting them in a better position to defeat the arguably more powerful Carthage. Carthage certainly lacked this cohesion within its Empire, particularly in the lead up to the Second Punic War with political and personal rifts between the Barcids, Gisgo, Hanno, Hasdrubal the Fair and a lot of its manpower (mercenaries) providers. The Mercenary War had quite a hefty impact both politically and militarily. I know we (especially myself) are digressing a lot here, but I'm enjoying it

Hannibal was never a conqueror in the same vein as Attila or Alexander, so really shouldn’t form part of the question. Alexander’s empire lived on after his death in 323 BCE for a number of years under Antipater and Perdicas, and only started to fragment when Antipater died in 319 leaving no obvious successor. The civilized nature of Alexander’s Empire meant that the rule of law generally prevailed; local government went on whoever was in charge. Alexander’s empire therefore only split into large constituent parts focused on the power bases of his Generals. Attila’s empire, on the other hand, was composed of subject tribal confederations loyal to their local chieftains who were in turn loyal to Atilla as the font of gifts and honours. So when he died his empire was more predisposed to fracture and the subject peoples rebelled against the Hunnic ruling elite and destroyed all vestiges of their empire.

Exactly - that is one huge distinction that has to be made in this thread. Hannibal never really 'conquered' anything in Italy. Some might argue "Oh well he exercised full control over some areas in Southern Italy, qualifying him as a conqueror". He did conquer a good deal of Spain to increase the Barcid realm, but Italy is a slightly more complex matter. His tale is different from Attila's and Alexander's in this sense, as you pointed out; he did not undergo a series of conquests into the land of his foe either to be defeated in the short or medium term. Did Attila retain any of his conquests into Eastern Gaul or the Balkans, after being defeated at Chalons/at his death? I think he must have nominally retained control over a portion simply due to the fact that Rome couldn't have had time to 'regain' some territories/cities.

Regards,

- Knights -

Originally posted by Challenger2 The civilized nature of Alexander’s Empire meant that the rule of law generally prevailed; local government went on whoever was in charge. Alexander’s empire therefore only split into large constituent parts focused on the power bases of his Generals. Attila’s empire, on the other hand, was composed of subject tribal confederations loyal to their local chieftains who were in turn loyal to Atilla as the font of gifts and honours. So when he died his empire was more predisposed to fracture and the subject peoples rebelled against the Hunnic ruling elite and destroyed all vestiges of their empire.

Originally posted by Miller Originally posted by Challenger2 The civilized nature of Alexander’s Empire meant that the rule of law generally prevailed; local government went on whoever was in charge. Alexander’s empire therefore only split into large constituent parts focused on the power bases of his Generals. Attila’s empire, on the other hand, was composed of subject tribal confederations loyal to their local chieftains who were in turn loyal to Atilla as the font of gifts and honours. So when he died his empire was more predisposed to fracture and the subject peoples rebelled against the Hunnic ruling elite and destroyed all vestiges of their empire.         Are you sure you are not describing the same thing twice and just putting a positive spin on one group by adding the word "civilized" in there Some of your second phrase could very well be used to describe how Parthians come into power

Certainly not. The difference between  Asia Minor/Persia/Bactria, etc was the legacy of city and town dwellers and an established infrastructure and local government dating back to the Achaemenids and beyond. North of the Black sea and East of the Weser, we don't know of any such legacy. Here we have a more fluid culture of fluctuating tribal confederacies ruled by the occasional 'overlord'.