Name a more overrated historical figure. Protip: you can't

I mean of ones we have access to in a decently complete form.

Eg Rufus, Plutarch or Arrian

He did considerably more than just inherit his father's troops, he was undeniably a military genius and had far higher ambition. Though I always thought it was interesting that Augustus was quite surprised to learn that Alexander didn't consider ruling his empire to be a greater challenge than conquering it. When he died all of the plans he left behind were either about military campaigns or monuments, there was nothing about administration.

plutarch's parallel lives, the chapter about Lycurgus is pretty cool as well

>Be rather ordinary would-be Messiah in a time in Jewish history when there are dozens of the fuckers around.
>Don't actually preach anything that would be that radical from a Jewish religious perspective, unless you happen to be a Sadducee.
>Years after the fact, a faggot calling himself Paul would make up all sorts of shit about your religious views, syncretize it with several Hellenistic mystery cults, and turn it into something that only passingly resembles what you preach, but does have mass appeal to all those goyim.
>Get treated as a God on earth.

Has Alexander beat all out.

If it weren't for him no one would even care about all that jewish bullshit.

>If it weren't for him no one would even care about all that jewish bullshit.

Nah, Paul could have found another charismatic fucker to moon over. He's the one who really "invented" Christianity, not Jesus.

Adolf Hitler.

what are you basing this on, its not like we have any actual writings of jesus to say that Paul perverted them

go home saul

what?

The fact that Christianity was in fact considered to be a Jewish movement, at least sort of accepted by Jews, and ran into troubles with obvious Sadducees (despite the fact that the Gospels describe them as Pharisees, despite being priests and having Sadducee positions) strongly implies that whatever Jesus or the nucleus of the starting Christian community was teaching, it wasn't that far out of line with the what the Pharsiees were saying, but was opposed to what the Sadduccees were saying or doing.

If Jesus really was teaching something radical, like "I am God", we'd have more evidence of actual opposition from the Pharisee community.

well they did get him killed

Also, while not exactly a writing of Jesus, Pauls' writings about himself are enormously sketchy. Despite the fact that he claims to be a former Pharisee, and a religious and learned one before becoming a Christian, he displays no evidence of knowing even basic Pharisee theology, like knowing what different sacrifices are for, or what the purpose of Passover is, or how sin and atonement work in the Old Testament. Sure, I don't expect someone who had a change of faith to parrot the mainstream Pharisee line, but he, when he addresses "people who know the Law" in his epistles, displays clear ignorance of what the old Law actually is.

Given that he's either lying or mistaken about a fundamental point of his credibility, the idea that he faithfully represented Jesus's teachings, whatever they might be, is something of a stretch.

(((Emperor))) Stefan Uros IV Nemanjic "The Forceful"

nigga what? He had sons