What elements are necessary for an Alexander the Great analogue besides being young and unstoppably good at conquering...

>What elements are necessary for an Alexander the Great analogue besides being young and unstoppably good at conquering stuff?
Picrelated.

I bet you believe romans were straight too.

Great logistics
Charismatic af
Starting up with extremely loyal and well-motivated troops
At least half-decent tactics
Dragging bunch of scholars with your army

Change places and importance of logistics and tactics

>Maccies
>greek

This meme will never die.

Your pic related is more my pic related than it is Alex. The only difference is Reinhard died young.

when the fuck did i even imply that

>Bruh, hold my cervisia while I build a land bridge to kick the shit out of these island chumps

Be an incredible conquering leader, but really shitty at naming stuff

charisma, making allies / recruitment, ambition

They need their daddy to do all the work of setting them up to accomplish anything.

Fights hard and parties way harder

Alexander is a beautiful name, fuck you.

he also frontlined all the time despite being the general

Wasn't his son a homo who basically became suicidical after his dad had his lover executed?

But Nappy had both logistics and tactics down well

My setting version of Alexander is a wannabe blacksmith you couldn't make a regular sword. One night he got piss drunk and woke up with a sword in his hand. He figured he made it while drunk. He then decide to go test it out only to end up conquering half the continent and freeing the elves from the bird people.

His sword is now on display in the grand temple

He never actually made the sword he just stole it.

No, Frederick II the Great he was the homo and tactical genius. His father was also keen on military, tho

>Not doing a Caesar analogy instead
Bruh, do you even constant political backstabbing?

>I'm going to name this city after myself: Alexandria
>I'm going to name this other city after myself as well: Alexandria
>See this ancient and really important city in Egypt? Fuck it, it's Alexandria now

Alexander characters need to

>Inherit a solid position from their predecessor
>Have a god-tier combined arms doctrine
>Be a conquer
>Want to merge his people with the ones hes conquered through marriage
>Go a bit mad towards the end
>Die young resulting in a fragmented empire

>Want to merge his people with the ones hes conquered through marriage

>The generic brilliant conqueror guy from my setting is an orc
>The lands he's currently expanding into are owned by elves

>His father was also keen on military, tho
Worth noting that his father was much less keen on actually waging war. Wilhelm the first did just one small campaign against the swedes and that's it.

That's fine, just be aware Alexander was hated for forcing his men to marry local nobility. Once he died pretty much all these marriages ended.

Also if hes conquering a bunch of random areas that are not a single unified threat (tribes of elves that confederate to fight him) you should go with a Caesar figure like said, Alexander defeated an Empire and annexed it. His other campaigns weren't as impressive.

That's a shame. Having him keep his janky, crooked sword would demonstrate to his people that flesh is stronger than steel. Good swords are only tools for good swordsmen, who are nothing but tools for good strategists, who are nothing but tools for good leaders. A leader doesn't need a good sword at his hip because he has thousands of good swords in his thrall.

Alexander fought in his battles, he would appreciate a good sword.

That was some needless risk-taking, no wonder he died so young.

>no wonder he died so young
Not in battle, though. His sword served him well.
>needless
Maybe, but that's something that gains you a lot of respect from your soldiers. We spoke about Frederic before, who also was very present on the battlefied and sometimes led charges.

Romans and Greeks didn't care about the straight/Gay/Bi stuff. Heck, no one cared until 150 or less ago.

A lot of well-respected generals were close to the frontlines. Caesar was well-known (and beloved by his soldiers) for being pretty much directly behind the frontlines during pivotal battles like Alesia, and Napoleon's charge at Arcole remained one of the most prominent moments of his carreer (and was later on eagerly used in propaganda. Surprisingly Toulon much less so, the battle where Napoleon actually got stabbed in the thigh by a British bayonet).

Personally I'd say that even today everyone loves a leader who leads by example.

He took a lot of wounds in battle, which likely caused the perforated bowel that caused his eventual death.

Being *near* the front lines so you can see what's going on is not the same thing as being in the front line and fighting. One is understandable, especially in an era when the fastest way to get intelligence is having a guy on a horse come over and tell you. The other is a waste.

He's is famed as the "Soldier King" because he build the Prussian Military up, to become one of the most effective forces in Europe.

>No, Frederick II the Great he was the homo and tactical genius.

He was considered insanely brash by the standards of a society of nobles that loved to style itself after the image of greek demigods. Dude clearly was looking for suicide by war all his life.

I'm a bit of an Alexander fanboy, so I feel pretty happy to bring this up. First Alexander is not someone you actively want in your campaign. He's too big, too almost-perfect. Frankly it's hard to show him without making him a Mary-Sue. Other than his weirdly close relationship with his snake-worshipping mom and his alcoholism the man didn't really have flaws. He won every battle and he won damn near all of them in a big way. Still, I AM a fanboy so feel free to draw your own conclusions; mine are glowingly positive. Also fuck Oliver Stone.

If he's in the same campaign active at the same time as the PC's then they will want to kill him. If they don't kill him then they'll feel railroaded and overshadowed by a DMPC mary sue. Better to put him in the history books or make him the BBEG.

Now, let's talk about who he was and his accomplishments.

Alexander started off in Macedonia under his father Philip the Great. Philip was top-tier and actually raised Alexander properly to be a successor to him. Alex got an education in Greece from Aristotle himself. This was hugely influential. He was essentially on the cutting edge of science and philosophy at the time and would regularly send back plants and animals for Aristotle to study from his campaigns. Alexandria in Egypt where the great library would eventually be built was designed with these principles in mind; so wind would naturally cool the city in the hot summer, settled in an unsettled yet ideal location for a large city. He aspired to be a philosopher-king in a very real way. We also have a few of his words on the matter:

"Alexander to Aristotle, greeting. You have not done well to publish your books of oral doctrine; for what is there now that we excel others in, if those things which we have been particularly instructed in be laid open to all? For my part, I assure you, I had rather excel others in the knowledge of what is excellent, than in the extent of my power and dominion. Farewell." (Source Plutarch)

Fanboy harder over him, there is much to learn.

Let's put it this way:
Alexanter, 2k years earlier, had better logistics than Napoleon in his best moment (fighting in west-most parts of Prussia).
On the other hand, Alexander was pretty unremarkable tactician, all things considered.

Tactics < Strategy < Logistics.

cotd.
He was also instructed in how to fight and he was supposedly extremely good at it. Pankration later became the parent of many later Asian martial arts and presumably many lost European ones as well. He was also great at mounted warfare, spear and sword, leadership, and... well, basically everything people knew how to do at the time.

We do have a quote of how much fighting he did in person over later years, but it's important to remember that he was not like modern military leaders. He led from the front and very nearly died because of it many, many times. First, a description of the aftermath of his career from the man himself,

"'Perhaps you will say that, in my position as your commander, I had none of the labours and distress which you had to endure to win for me what I have won. But does any man among you honestly feel that he has suffered more for me than I have suffered for him? Come now, if you are wounded, strip and show your wounds, and I will show mine. There is no part of my body but my back which has not a scar; not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark of which I do not carry upon me. I have sword-cuts from close fight; arrows have pierced me, missiles from catapults bruised my flesh; again and again I have been struck by stones or clubs—and all for your sakes: for your glory and your gain."

I prefer to believe he was assassinated, but to be frank he suffered from not being a D&D character. It's not at all implausible that he died as a result of those injuries.

Basically Alex was /fitlit/ in weaponized form. You should just assume he knows whatever he can know. He learned from everyone he conquered, bringing them into his army and researching them. If he's in a world where there's magic, he'll know it. Hell, he'd probably be a literal demigod instead of claiming he was for PR reasons.

Bromance.
Brilliance.
Great skill in politics.
Allround cool guy.
Dying young.

>If he's in the same campaign active at the same time as the PC's then they will want to kill him. If they don't kill him then they'll feel railroaded and overshadowed by a DMPC mary sue. Better to put him in the history books or make him the BBEG.
this
you could use a more flawed figure like napoleon, "barbarian" conquerors etc if you want someone more real

Caesar would be better for a flawed character in my opinion. He has done some pretty ballsy things for no reason other than being ballsy (trying to invade Germania and Britannia in short succession [both unsuccesfully] when he already had enough shit on his plate in Gaul alone), pretty much hijacked a republic in no need of saving and burned down loads of villages just to set an example. He'd be a good BBEG actually, the kind of whom you understand why he has such a fanatical following but at the same time understand why others hate him.

yeah, he works fine as well

To be honest when you look at the situation in his army and at home I believe it's equally likely he was assassinated. He'd just put down a rebellion, he wanted to continue conquering with a new army and his relatives were so jelly that they would have killed him given the slightest chance. After all, they did kill his mother and kids after he died. After a long campaign he was coming back to Greece. A place other people had been ruling with him gone, and which didn't want him back.

Then there's the frustratingly vague answer he gave to his generals on his deathbed. "To the Strongest." Personally I think he was poisoned, he knew he was and that was his final "fuck you". To not give his empire to anyone but let them smash apart what he made.

Alexander's story is basically the story of the limits of the perfect man. His limit was hit when he conquered most of the world on foot with classical era technology and his very human army gave up. He was going home to raise another, and people feared he was taking on tyrannical Persian ways. He'd killed generals for plotting against him in the past, and frankly it's not unlikely his generals were plotting against him. They had the largest empire in history at stake.

If he had lived he might well have conquered Europe, possibly even have had an invasion into China later in his life. If any human in history had the potential to unite Eurasia, it was him. He was just about the perfect man - and he didn't live up to that potential because no one else is.

His death is mysterious so it's sorta open choice. There's good reason to believe he died from complications as a result of his many injuries over the years, but there's plenty of reason to believe he was assassinated too. I simply prefer to believe the latter because frankly it makes for a much better story. His life ends up a tragedy rather than a story cut in half by the sudden natural death of the main character.

>No Genghis Khan and Subutai analogue
How many times has a Genghis Khan analogue been accurate, how many times has there even been a Subutai analogue?

Who is Subutai ?

Actually this brings up an idea. You couldn't have a campaign with Alexander the Great running around - but you could have a campaign with Alex AND Ghenghis AND Admiral Yi, etc.

Basically just make a game where the setting is a game of Civilization with magic. Or set it during a game of Dom4. There's already an Alexander analogue in it!

Mongol Empire General, he wrecked the Polish and Hungarian Armies, and Chinese armies later. Fought some 65 pitched battles and won. I'd be inclined to say he was a better general than Genghis Khan except he fought in the army Genghis Khan founded from nothing.

The man who would have conquered Europe if his Khan hadn't died on him.

Subutai, you can't just defeat the armies of Poland and Hungary with a scouting party.

1. Dump your extra points in charisma during character creation, and take the Lucky feat
2. Inherit daddy's well drilled army
3. Be an expert in logistics and a proactive strategist who leads from the front
4. Important: Remember to invade the massive decentralized empire's lands where a handful of wins in key battles will make their satraps swear loyalty to you, instead of the smaller nation with a functioning central government that can just zergrush your superior forces by conscripting every adult male and slowly bleed you to death
5. ???
6. PROFIT!

>It's an IRL match of Civilization except Napoleon is fanboying over Caesar who is fanboying over Alexander, resulting in an ass-raping triumverate based on dubious republicanism

>Come now, if you are wounded, strip and show your wounds, and I will show mine

2lewd.

For all that Pyrrhus was hyped up to be Alexander II Conquer Boogaloo the guy really was just a one trick pony. He had the elephant charge and... that's it. He didn't really do anything very smart. He was simply a decent commander for his era in charge of a good army that went against other good Roman commanders in charge of an equally good army.

Now Alex would have kicked the shit out of the Romans. Not because he was better equipped but because he had an incredible sense for outplaying his opponents well before actual combat ever began.

Now if you want a really interesting thought experiment you could replace Hannibal and his armies with Alexander the Great and his. Would things have ended differently? Hannibal was perfect in most of his battles, won against the Romans again and again and they just never surrendered and threw armies at him until he lost. He just didn't have the support he needed to truly conquer Rome. But Alexander didn't have the resources he needed to conquer an island (boats) and just decided to move the land to the island the hard way, fighting off enemy boat raids on his land bridge in the process. And he WON.

So could he have come up with something that would have conquered that latter Rome that Hannibal could not? That's the real question.

Also Alex was crossing mountains during winter to attack people by surprise centuries before Hannibal thought it was cool.
You have a point there - a lot of these guys are actually fans of one another and are generally their times equivalent of a militaristic but open minded and well educated person. The old world warhawk liberals, basically. While some like Ghengis are unlikely to play well with others some like Caesar totally would.

Napoleon was fanboying over Frederic.
>Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here

Napoleon clearly didn't respect the "only one waifu" rule. If we include every single one of them, we may end up with a centuumverate.

Naming things after your genderbent self.

Alternatively, naming so many things after yourself that it becomes the genderbent version of your name.

Genghis Khan wouldn't have gotten very far in life if he couldn't befriend others and honor his deals.

If Alexander lost a major battle ONCE he would lose everything. Your PCs cannot lose or else everything goes to shit. Darius could lose multiple armies and try different strategies

The excitement of travelling. For many of these Macedonians, they have never even left their native country. So imagine the culture shock of seeing asia minor, egypt and northern india. Dont forget the very many many foreign women.

Just keeping the command chain up that far would have spelled the end for the European conquest effort, wouldn't it?
I appreciate horse archers as much as the next guy, but they weren't invincible.

Don't say it too loudly, the Japs might hear you, add cute girls and run with it.

A great army, a great mind, and great morale. Also, a fuckton of food and the planning (and means) needed to make sense out of a logistician's nightmare.
Little correction: Dante included sodomites as damned in Hell with blasphemers and usurers, and had the top of purgatory (for the lustful) divided between straight and gay. Also, if I recall, Romans thought that being made passive was humiliating, while being active (and forcing someone to be passive, regardless of gender iirc) was a display of virility and meant that you were a powerful/strong person.

>And we shall call the cities we've conquered...
>Alexander
>Trojan Alexander
>Carmanian Alexander
>Arian Alexander
>Arachosian Alexander
>Caucasus Mountains Alexander
>Indus River Alexander
>Victorious Alexander
>Extreme Alexander at the World's Edge
>Bucephalos

You should read the whole speech. It's amazing and it makes it clear just how high Macedon and he himself rose. Macedon basically started out as a poor abused rural state on the borders of Greece. Philip took that and conquered Greece and made the perfect combined arms army. But Alexander ascended the throne with others out for his head, 60 coins in the treasury and over 500 coins in debt. He killed every rival, put down every rebellion, conquered the greatest nation in the world of that era (Persia) and most of the world in general.

And it only ended because his people quit.

livius.org/sources/content/arrian/anabasis/mutiny-at-opis/

Nobody can pretend he had a small ego about it, though, that's for sure.

Buggery and dying like a bitch, resulting in his empire crumbling almost instantaneously.

Don't forget Iskandariyah (Alex's name in arabic).

>add cute girls and run with it.
Way ahead of you senpai.

>Sekko Boys with generals
FUND IT

Post superior version.
At least this one rules over Europe

>Advanced twintail tsundere: sixtail tsundere
>Better than an adorable but brilliant loli
Tsundere's are shit. SHIT.

The Rashidun Caliphs conquered it and started calling it that a millenium after Alexander's death. The Persian name was very similar to the original in Greek, eg. the man himself was referred to as "Gizistag Aleksandar" in Middle Persian, "Alexander the Accursed"

Alexander the Great type character comes back from the afterlife while leading an army of the dead to finish conquering what he could not in life. Interesting campaign idea or not?

>Alexandria the Great
Hot greek chick with curly hair and a big nose and an ego the size of her empire.

>Julia Caesar
Short curly hair, charming, smart and yet naive.

>Napolia
That brash girl with no political skills but kickass battlefield skills.

>Ghengha Khan
A hot amazonian Mongolian girl on horseback. And she's gonna have 300 husbandos, willing or no.

>Admiral FemYi
That quiet bookish Korean girl who turns out to be secretly kickass but gets bullied by her own side.

>Admiral Nilsine
A one armed drunken flirty chick with a good bit of flash.

And Alexander fanboys over Cyrus II who in turn styles himself after Sargon of Akkad

I assume at least one of these is Fate because hay that's what they do but, sauce?

For full analogue the conquests have to end after the person in question dies young and brokenhearted when their army cannot go on. The Empire must immediately disintegrate as it was only the person in question holding it together

If only, servant Napoleon never.

The orange haired one is from Eiyuu Senki. Don't know the other.

He actually wanted to be a hobo
>"But truly, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes."

That's because Diogenes and Alexander were both people who substituted their own reality, and Alexander appreciated that.

To be fair Diogenes actually ended up living the better life. He died at 89. Alexander died in his early 30's. And Diogenes is remembered just as Alexander is, so he too has immortality.

Guess Alex got a bum deal and the bum got a kingly one.

The issue is that Ghengis Khan wasn't idolized by anyone nor was he ideologically similar. Caesar and Napolen had practically the same rise to power, Caesar idolized Alexander, and both Napoleon and Frederick II were enlightened despots.

alex gets more bums than diogenes though

>Julia Caesar
>Curly hair
Kill yourself

Diogenes was a Greek philosopher, man. Nobody knew bums like the king of bums.

It's funny because the 'Alexander was gay' meme comes from a single line in a primary source that referred to his devotion to his friend. The modern day equivalent is like saying two friends are brother's.

It just got really popular among scholars, who have an almost incestuous system of copying and stealing from each other.

Also, as recent papers are suggesting, early 20th century scholars make a lot of homosexuality claims of classical culture based on ultimately scant evidence. Even Greek pederasty might be overblown and largely misinterpreted.

Sounds good enough, depends entirely on your players and the scale of the campaign

Caesar

>The issue is that Ghengis Khan wasn't idolized by anyone
Except for the whole of Asia?

So what you're doing is fighting a classical era ubermensch. Every single soldier under his command should have class levels and his army should have everything.

At the same time he's massively out of date but eager to learn. He'd probably want to avoid big battles until modernizing after he conquers some initial territory.

You've got magical beasts in his army, philosopher-wizards, ancient equivalents to knights and so on. His only real weakness now would be how out of date he is and the fact that they're undead. A campaign against a resurrected Alexander would be a campaign to keep him from updating his forces long enough to put together a modern force that is strong enough to survive his bullshit OP battle skill.

On the other hand he'd probably be the friendliest skelebro. In life he was probably one of the nicest guys of his time, avoiding genocide and generally leaving conquered areas alone as long as they sent him taxes and soldiers to continue his conquests. He'd sit you down, pour you a drink and try to bone you. But he was a pretty chill guy by the standards of that era unless he was drunk.

Do you have any idea how popular the name "Khan" is among central Asians? Where do you think that comes from?

Listen to this:
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06d9bkx

In any case Greek and Roman culture didn't look at sexuality in nearly the same way as we do. Back then all that mattered is whether you were on top.

Maybe it would be more interesting then to not make him all "lol evil?" He just reawakens to a new world to conquer and does what he did best in life. Just trying to logic out why he would come back.