We all know Alexander and his legendary conquest from Greece to Bactria but what of the claim that he was the only great man of history. After all, who were Napoleon and Julius Caesar but followers trying to achieve only a fraction of the glory of the king of the world?
Have there been any truly great men? Will there ever be another in our time? Discuss
Some men may be considered greater than others, but true greatness has not and will never be achieved. All accomplishments will eventually be forgotten.
Who is Attila the Hun and The Mongals.
sad to think about but true
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Octavius didn't do a half bad job of taking power, keeping that power, brick to marble and all that. Plus he lived to an old age.
It was Hitler.
So he was good at war, I don't see the best bakers developing delusional complexes
God will never be forgotten. He's the only true "great man".
>conquer the persian empire when it is a fractured mess
>you suddenly conquer the world.
Cyrus and Darius were both better desu
>Be born, inherit a country and the one of the world's most powerful armies
>Conquer an Empire in the last stage of terminal decline, and large swathes of nothing at all
>Your Empire balkanises promptly after you die
Alexander was shit. Justinian, Genghis, Napoleon, Tokugawa, Zhou Enlai are all much more impressive
Is a "great man" defined by potential, or actualization? Because there are certainly countless men who would be classified as "great" if all the right factors came together. For all we know, a large portion of the male population would be great men, if all the right factors came together. Would Napoleon be nearly as "great" if he were the son of a Persian liquor store clerk?
Hitler, Washington, atilla, genghis khan, Caesar, napoleon, jesus, muhammad, Charlemagne, to name a few.
Great means over 6 feet tall.
>alexanders empire balkanised
>genghis was much better
Alexander was like short as shit. Like barely 5 feet or something.
God is not a "man", as we understand it, and neither does He exist temporally. He exists in a transcended state beyond His creation, and the end of everything will be the same as at its beginning, with only a perfect and indivisible God. To apply the same standards and understanding of men and women to God is absurd.
>takes a shitload of land
>divides it among his generals
>dies
>everybody fights
>"Was Alexander the first (and last) great man?"
No.
>justinian
>better
Marrying a roastie and wasting your empires wealth on futile conquests while also fucking up the land, truly a great man.
Gilgamesh was the original Great Man.
Manlet rage is what made him do it.
Alexander is literally a meme, he was one of the conquerors known by the Romans so they idolised him, then people who idolised Romans idolised Alexander, then people who idolised people who idolised Romans also idolised Alexander.
His achievements are impressive but nothing close to some men that lived after and before him. He inherited a functional and loyal army, used it to conquer a vestigial empire, died promptly before he could lose in India and his empire dissolved. His greatest achievement is dying at his peak.
The first and last great man is God.
All men set their sights to God.
-->
who before alexander was greater than him?
And who do you think is greater after him
>inb4 chinggis meme
Cyrus was greater than him
Ashoka was greater than him.
> Was Alexander real man or just mythical character
fixed your, OP