One died at 32 and his Empire immediately fractured.

The other died at 65 and his Empire grew after his death.

Greatness is not measured by a flash in the pan, but whether the Empire you build can stand the test of time.
Genghis Khan had the luxury of being able to choose his heir. Meanwhile Alexander's only son wasn't even born. I would say it is a testament to Alexander's ability to inspire loyalty that the First Diadochi War took almost 4 years to happen.
 
And it's not like the Mongol Empire lasted that much longer after Gengis died. Two generations as opposed to one.
 
On the one hand, Mongol dynasties held power for much longer than two generations.

On the other hand, by that standard the descendants of the Diadochi and the other Hellenistic dynasties founded in the wake of Alexander lasted a few hundred years themselves...
 
One died at 32 and his Empire immediately fractured.

The other died at 65 and his Empire grew after his death.

Greatness is not measured by a flash in the pan, but whether the Empire you build can stand the test of time.

Napoleon's empire lasted ten years, and the whole world knows his name, and the legal codes he created are the building blocks of modern Europe.

Meanwhile, the Gokturk Khaganate lasted about two centuries, and was far bigger in land mass, but I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of Turkey who knows of its existence, and anyone at all who could name its first ruler off the top of their head.

The age and size of an empire does not always correlate to its effect or it's legacy on the world stage.
 
Last edited:
@Telamon have you see the questions regarding the lack of our Command-Training from Tercerus this round? Did we instead gain the boost to the Gallic Cavalry?
 
Meanwhile, the Gokturk Khaganate lasted about two centuries, and was far bigger in land mass, but I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of Turkey who knows of its existence, and anyone at all who could name its first ruler off the top of their head.
Now that's just your Euro-centrism speaking.:p
Also, sorry to bother you again with the same text, buuuut...
Lesser Feat, 85 BC --

First attested to by Plutarch in his Roman Lives, then mentioned again by Cassius Dio, the Speech to the Elders of the Pentri was a famous speech, now lost, given by the then-Tribune of the Sixth Legion, Quintus Cingulatus Atellus, to the tribal assembly of the Pentri tribe of the Samnites during the fourth and final Samnite war. This speech, long since lost, apparently convinced the famously stubborn Pentri to almost wholly submit to Roman rule. It was recorded by several present, and its' unlikely and overwhelming success despite the famed Samnite hostility to Rome -- and to Atellus himself in particular -- made it remarkable in it's own time. Fragments of it appear to have survived until at least the 160s, as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius apparently quoted it in a speech given in late 165 to a rebelling tribe in Moesia.
 
Napoleon's empire lasted ten years, and the whole world knows his name, and the legal codes he created are the building blocks of modern Europe.

Meanwhile, the Gokturk Khaganate lasted about two centuries, and was far bigger in land controlled, but I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of Turkey who knows of its existence, and anyone at all who could name its first ruler off the top of their head.
That kind of thing encroaches of comparing apples to oranges. The eras are just too different.

Napoleon's world was beginning to shrink. Outside the US, Europe had a stranglehold on just about everything. And like I said before in regards to Gemino and Samnium, an empire is measured by the enemies it has beaten. The Empire Where The Sun Never Set, the Army With A State, the Great bear, they carried Napoleon's name into the future, while their intellectuals toyed with the concepts of the Enlightenment and the Revolution made by men other than Napoleon.

The fact that writing and literacy was hella more common doesn't hurt.
 
Since I've already commented on the votes and made my opinions known, I'm focusing on the bulk of the text.

Green/Veteran Split: 4 half-green Cohorts, 4 Average, 1 Skilled, 1 Elite, 1 Skilled Auxiliary
Good to see this. Given how the stats work, I'm pretty sure we just lifted three of Sertorius's Cursed Cohorts of Failing -3 into Cohorts of Mediocrity -1, his Cohort of Mediocrity -1 into a Cohort of Adequacy, and his Auxiliary Mercs of Occasional Dumbassery into Auxiliary Mercs of Occasional Badassery +1. Not bad. That's a lot of +1s and +2s on the die rolls that Sertorius will be facing at Nola, which he would not otherwise face. At least assuming we don't accidentally drop our half of the army into a meat-grinder. :p

Since time and memory immemorial, the Pentri have lived in the hills of Italy, and since time immemorial, they have taken up arms against the race of Rome, numbering ever and always among the staunchest defenders of Samnite independence and liberty. Across the centuries and the years, they have always held Rome and her people as enemies, and have risen in arms time and again to throw off her yoke. It is said that the Hirpini are fiercer, the Caudini are wealthier, and the Caraceni wealthier still -- but no race or tribe in all of Samnium is so intractable as the Pentri. Their memories are long, and their grudges longer still. They do not forget, they do not appease, and most of all, they do not forgive.
Uhoh... uh-ohhh...

It is all the more commendable, then, that you have won their hearts.
WHEW!

You came to Aquilonia, where the assembled elders of every village, town, and city between Bovianum and the Appenines had gathered to discuss the fate of their people. Urban nobles and pastoral farmers alike assembled in the great Forum of Aquilonia, and when you -- a Roman, with Roman face and Roman tongue and Roman garb -- entered their midst, there were more than a few ready to cut you down on the spot. But you were not without your allies among them. The elders you had won to your side, the powerful men of the cities you had won and saved and gathered to your cause, and those who were simply weary of incessant war -- all these gathered to your side. Foremost among them was Marius Himatus, your client and a veritable powerhouse in Samnite politics. It was the steadfast advocacy of Himatus and these others that even won you an invitation to the assembly, and their continued defense of you which won you the right to even speak before the gathered elders.
Huh. Would we have been able to pull this off without Marius Himatus? Interesting to wonder. If so, we owe him, because he gave us the chance to do something impressive.

And then you spoke of Rome.

You spoke of two hands -- in one, a sword, bringing with it the end of the Samnites, the end of a people as old as the hills and just as implacable. In the other, however, in the open hand, lay salvation. Food. Law. Justice. Hope. Rome comes only to provide what it provides to all of Italy, you said. Security, and shelter under the sword which had broken the Etruscans and the Latins and the Greeks, the sword which even now hangs like Damocles' own blade over all the lands of Samnium. You made four promises on behalf of Rome -- food, to fill their bellies come winter. Men, to harvest the food. Roads, straight and true, to carry food and men alike. And their enemies, made to pay reparations for the woes and suffering heaped upon the Pentri over these long years.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" :p

When you descended from the podium, there was a roar like all the waves in all the ocean crashing against your ears. Men who had given their lives and limbs and heirs to the defiance of Rome since their youth cheered your name and applauded you. Rufus, at the base of the podium, met you simply with a wide stare and slack jaw. He would tell you after that in that moment, upon that step, you seemed for all the world Scaevola Pontifex in new flesh, an orator to rival the greats.
As @Thyreus pointed out, I hope he watched and learned. :p

The Assembly of the Pentri: 1d20 +1 (Proficient Diplomacy) +2 (Accomplished Oratory) + 1 (Marius Himatus) -1 (Enemy of the Samnites) +1 (Gift of Minerva) = 22
Needed: 18
Legendary Success

Convincing the Elders: N/A
(Simply put, I had another vote set up for when you lost the last one (as you were probably going to), wherin you would convince the Pentri one-by-one to support you, winning over the various factions through individual rolls of Charisma/Diplo. But, uh, someone hacked my dice, so...)
Woo! We did it! We beat what was, in effect... a DC 14 skill check when modifiers are factored in. Yaay!

Hopefully that gives us more leverage in the upcoming campaign; I don't think we could even consider taking all four infantry cohorts with us if we hadn't swept the field so effectively here.

With the Pentri falling in line behind you, unifying the area starts becoming surprisingly easy. Even if the Samnites as a people do not wholly trust you, their elders do, and that is enough for them. Bandit raids decrease in frequency, supplies stop going 'missing', and the citizens of Bovianum begin greeting you with more than a steely glare. All that is left now, you reckon, is to defeat Gemino.
"In war, everything is very simple, but the simplest thing is very difficult."

As you march from town to town with the Gauls, you receive a favorable reception -- after all, there is little they can do against you, little they would try to do against the terrifying Gauls, and little their elders would order them to do after your oration in Aquilonia. But wherever you go, you can find no sign or word of Gemino and his bandits. The rebel seems to have vanished into thin air. Even the most talkative of your informants among the Pentri swear up and down they have heard no word of him for months. Your own forces go unharassed, and Pompolussa reports nothing but fair weather and rocky hills. It seems for a moment that the famous rebel might have actually laid down his arms, realizing he was bested when his own people turned on him en masse.
Sadly, no, he just did the usual guerilla thing: when on hemmed-in ground, MOVE, so as to avoid "when on death ground, fight."

In retrospect this would have been a great turn to relax our securing of the supply lines and, say, build some roads or something. But hindsight is always 20/20 and all, and if Gemino had done as we predicted we'd have really needed those tightened-up defenses.

It all this and more that you begin to set down in your new journal, a diligent record of all you have done and continue to do in Samnium. Tercerus informs you that the greatest generals of yore kept journals of their conquests, and so conquered the future by writing their stories before other men, less sympathetic to them, might.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

...Seconding the hope that Quintus Atellus thinks to include a few of his past moments. Especially the one about presenting the mural to Sertorius; that one is just too perfect to be lost to history.

In the days that go by without attack or harassment, you spend your time fraternizing and bonding with the Gauls. You would not expect yourself to get along so well with brutes and barbarians, but get along you do. With Veniximaeus toasting your name over ever fire and cheering you as the best damn Roman he ever met, it does not take long for you to build a familiar rapport with the Gallic cavalry. Soon, they are riding and working under your command as easily as if you had been born from a Gallic mother on Gallic soil. Some back in Rome might frown at such familiar association with the Gauls, of all people, but you readily accept them as your comrades.
Any Roman who'd frown at it on campaign is the kind of Roman who deserves to get trounced. Because if they can't keep up good relations with mounted auxiliaries, they'll simply never be able to Carrhae their own weight in the field, you know?

Gallic Cavalry advances from Average to Skilled. They only act as skilled under your command, and will be treated as average warriors under anyone else.
So, we get a further +1 (bonus) with the cavalry, IF we use them as a 'personal guard' unit, say as the reserve in battle. Or if we lead reconaissances ourselves. The cavalry aren't really numerous enough to do much else. We should definitely think in terms of mounting up and fighting with the cavalry in the coming battle.

It is in this quiet time that black news reaches you from the west. While your forces were distracted guarding supply lines and towns that, you now realize, were under no true threat, Gemino -- who, you now see, only attacked them to draw your defenses to them -- had snuck around the Roman-held territories and led his forces to the towns harassed by Tercerian, the tyrannical leader of the rebels of the Vulturnus. Painting himself as a hero of Samnium and a noble opponent of the tyrant, he traveled from town to town and rallied support there even as you were wooing the rest of the Pentri. These leaders, unable to even be present at the tribal assembly due to the dire straits of their people, believed his tales about the inaction and inefficiency of Rome, falling behind him almost to a man. His forces are replenished, nearly a thousand strong, and he now has a new powerbase, one with a bone to pick against Rome.
Huh. One of the trickiest processes for a guerilla force to navigate is the process of going from being guerillas to being a regular army. It looks like Gemino is trying this here, and it seems to be mostly working. On the other hand, he's still vulnerable in this phase. He'll have some of the weaknesses of an army (relatively easy to find), but not the strengths of a large army (that is to say, strength.).

Having major numerical advantages is one of the few ways we have a goodish chance of nullifying Gemino's bonuses; Telamon's examples cited possible -4 to -6 level penalties for being seriously outnumbered. That brings Gemino down to our level, though the famed Samnite Balls of Steel still present a problem.

If Gemino, among the finest commanders the Samnites have, assumes leadership of the rebels in the Valley, they will no longer be an ineffectual mob, but an army 4000 rebels strong -- enough to challenge your cohorts, and defeat them besides. You must either defeat Gemino or the rebels at Aesernia, before all your work in the west is undone.
As I discussed earlier... you know, I'll save that image for the omake. If I can manage it.

Suffice to say, I'd rather tangle with more talent than with more men, if I have my choice. Also, I suspect that our "Enemy in the Valley" option looks a lot like Gemino's "let my enemies fight it out, then laugh my ass off while scooping up the rewards" option.

It is in the midst of all this that word arrives from Sertorius. He has made a deal with the Hirpini, promising them land and wealth in exchange for their loyalty to Rome, and his forces advance on Nola with an army of Hirpinic auxiliaries even as he writes. Having heard of your success with the Pentri, he calls on you to rally the cohorts and meet him at Nola for the siege that will end the war -- after all, Appius has a mere 6000, and the two of you have the legion and the armies of the Hirpini, a combined 8000 battle-ready men. You just need to mop up the rebels and meet him at Nola to end the war. He trusts you will have no problem seeing such a simple matter to its' end, with your excellent successes thus far.

You could almost laugh at the irony.
Write to Sertorius [] You write to Sertorius asking for another cohort to reinforce your army. While you are well aware he cannot spare too many, a single cohort might well change the course of battle for you.
I am tempted to omake about this letter, but what's killing me is my inability to Do The Research on things ancient-Roman (and Gallic) to a standard of quality I can live with. :(

I might manage it anyway. Hope so. :)
 
Genghis Khan had the luxury of being able to choose his heir. Meanwhile Alexander's only son wasn't even born. I would say it is a testament to Alexander's ability to inspire loyalty that the First Diadochi War took almost 4 years to happen.


Napoleon's empire lasted ten years, and the whole world knows his name, and the legal codes he created are the building blocks of modern Europe.

Meanwhile, the Gokturk Khaganate lasted about two centuries, and was far bigger in land mass, but I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of Turkey who knows of its existence, and anyone at all who could name its first ruler off the top of their head.

The age and size of an empire does not always correlate to its effect or it's legacy on the world stage.

Yeah, but that's not really an indication of Napolean's greatness, is it? He came to rule an influential nation in the area that would experience a rapid and unprecendented rise to importance, so his legacy? name? memory? stuck. So we came to hear of him today. If Europe hadn't experienced any such thing or if he had been a similarly keen ruler in Central Asia or Africa or the steppes of Northeast Asia he might still be famous, but he wouldn't be mythologized because he wouldn't have been the implacable foe of the Russians, English, and Austrians.

Frankly, Alexander the Great makes for a good tale, but he didn't have much of a legacy. His conquests in Persia did not remain under Greek rule for really more than a century. Rome, a hiterto backwards area, swallowed up all the lands the Diodachi ruled, though admittedly not without a fight. Hellenization I give you, but it faded in the east and only survived in the west because Rome took much of it up.

Chingghis Khan conquered, on his own, an empire that would shake nearly every corner of the Old World. Afghanistan, Persia, India, Georgia, Egypt, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Germany, China, etc-- some of these were so drastically affected that they took until the modern era to recover. Not only did Chingghis conquer, but he also governed, and so effectively that elements of Mongolian providence persist in China today. He is one of the few rulers where you can say, without irony, that if he had not lived the events of world history might have unfolded in an entirely different direction. With others like Napolean you can say that many of the ingredients of their lives were seeded before they rose to power; Revolutionary France was going to have a certain set of enemies. But you can't say the same for Chingghis Khan.
 
Last edited:
On the one hand, Mongol dynasties held power for much longer than two generations.

On the other hand, by that standard the descendants of the Diadochi and the other Hellenistic dynasties founded in the wake of Alexander lasted a few hundred years themselves...

The Diadochi weren't Alexander's descendants or family, though? That kinda sorta matters.

Also Alexander inherited a powerful army from his father; Ghenghis Khan's father was a chieftain IIRC, but he didn't have an army or any real retainers comparable to that before he won their loyalty.
 
Yeah, but that's not really an indication of Napolean's greatness, is it? He came to rule an influential nation in the area that would experience a rapid and unprecendented rise to importance, so his legacy? name? memory? stuck. So we came to hear of him today. If Europe hadn't experienced any such thing or if he had been a similarly keen ruler in Central Asia or Africa or the steppes of Northeast Asia he might still be famous, but he wouldn't be mythologized because he wouldn't have been the implacable foe of the Russians, English, and Austrians.

Frankly, Alexander the Great makes for a good tale, but he didn't have much of a legacy. His conquests in Persia did not remain under Greek rule for really more than a century. Rome, a hiterto backwards area, swallowed up all the lands the Diodachi ruled, though admittedly not without a fight. Hellenization I give you, but it faded in the east and only survived in the west because Rome took much of it up.
What would Rome's "absorption" of the Hellenized eastern parts of the Mediterranean have looked like, had Alexander's campaigns never occurred?

Chingghis Khan conquered, on his own, an empire that would shake nearly every corner of the Old World. Afghanistan, Persia, India, Georgia, Egypt, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Germany, China, etc-- some of these were so drastically affected that they took until the modern era to recover. Not only did Chingghis conquer, but he also governed, and so effectively that elements of Mongolian providence persist in China today. He is one of the few rulers where you can say, without irony, that if he had not lived the events of world history might have unfolded in an entirely different direction. With others like Napolean you can say that many of the ingredients of their lives were seeded before they rose to power; Revolutionary France was going to have a certain set of enemies. But you can't say the same for Chingghis Khan.
But that begs the question.

If not for Napoleon, would Revolutionary France have been able to leave a big mark on European history by overthrowing numerous dynasties and principalities and massively shaking up the old post-Westphalian order of cabinet wars? Or would the French have just grimly hung on within their own borders until the surrounding monarchies either squashed them or got bored of fighting them? Either of those two outcomes would have been very different compared to the consequences of Napoleon burning his way across Europe like a wildfire by outgeneraling every army the old monarchies could field against him.

...

If not for Alexander, would Greece have managed to conquer the Persian Empire? Most likely not. You say that the Hellenistic era and the Diadochi didn't have much of an impact, but you're not comparing the consequences of their existence to the consequences that would have arisen had they not existed. Remember here, the null hypothesis is "Persian Empire continues to exist;" there was nothing about the Persian Empire of 350 BC that made it inevitable that this empire would collapse and have to fall back to the core territories and spend roughly 250 years laboriously reconstructing part of the empire from scratch.

Why did Rome absorb Hellenic culture so strongly? In part because it was overwhelmingly propagated across the Mediterranean, having displaced most of its competitors. Why did that happen? Alexander.

Why was Rome able to conquer the Eastern Mediterranean piecemeal? Because there was no single centralized state capable of opposing those conquests on more than a regional basis. Why was there no such state? Alexander.

Much of what Rome did on the greater world stage, was done in the wake of Alexander, and would likely have happened differently had Alexander never lived. He can't take the credit for those Roman accomplishments, but you can't say he didn't have impact in light of those accomplishments.

...

By the same token, Ghengis Khan was 'merely' the greatest of a long series of highly successful steppe nomad conquerors, who had been coming in waves out of Central Asia for well over a millenium. You can argue that he simply followed the very profitable and successful course laid out by people like the Uighurs and the Turks, and in a sense by the Manchus after him. Did he do it better and more extensively, with farther-reaching consequences? Absolutely. But if we can downplay Napoleon's influence on the civil codes and border maps of Europe, we can downplay Ghengis Khan's status as a uniquely effective uniter of steppe nomads.

The Diadochi weren't Alexander's descendants or family, though? That kinda sorta matters.
Does it? I mean, can we get a formal 'grading rubric' for legendary conquerors here? To what extent does it matter if the people who rule half a continent in your wake for centuries are or are not your biological descendants? Does Ghengis Khan get credit for, say, the Timurid dynasty and the Mughals, whose claims of ancestry from him are a bit... iffy, as I recall?

Also Alexander inherited a powerful army from his father; Ghenghis Khan's father was a chieftain IIRC, but he didn't have an army or any real retainers comparable to that before he won their loyalty.
The argument that Ghengis Khan had to personally win loyalty to gain an army, rather than inheriting one, certainly is a point on which he can claim greater successes.
 
You've got to grade something like this in categories. Most Land, Battles Won, Biggest Battle, Empire Impact, Empire Longevity, etc.

That raises the question: Who would win in a fight between them?
 
Omake: A Historiography of the Fourth Samnite War
Alright, let's take another stab at the writing.

"...and as Sertorius sought to quell the Hirpini, he knew he could not pacify all of Samnium at once, for he was but one man, and commanded but one legion. To carry out his will in Pentri, he dispatched his most able Tribune, Quintus Cingulatus Atellus, with the Sixth and Ninth Cohorts of his legion.

Atellus marched to the land of the Pentri to rally support to Rome. He was successful in his duties, but was harried by Gemino of the Pentri, the fiercest Samnite foe who despised Roman rule. Gemino attacked both Roman and proclaimed friends of Rome, desiring to continue defying Roman power. Atellus, seeking to curry favor from Bovianum and its surrounding lands, brought wagons of grain to feed the Samnites from Aquilonia. Gemino, wishing to punish all friends of Rome in his homeland, laid waste to much of the grain, driving many of his people closer to Atellus.

Atellus, wishing the favor of not only Aquilonia and Bovianum but the assembly of greats in Pentri, addressed to them of the Sword and the Open Hand of Rome. The most implacable of Samnium were swayed by his words, for his promises of protection from starvation, the safety of roads, and vengeance for crimes raised against them, were most convincing.

Atellus wrote to Sertorius of his success, who received word and found his success to be of good fortune. Wishing to put an end to those who would not kneel, he bade Atellus to bring, with all haste, his cohorts to Nola..."

Successes and Setbacks - The Fourth Samnite War, SPQR

"...and it is doubly important to ensure that one's actions and goals are clear and do not conflict with each other. It is all too common for leaders to simply say, 'this must be done,' and assume the goal will eventually materialize. More often than not, it is then left to the commanders on the ground to determine how it must be done, perhaps with resources insufficient for the task...

...an interesting example can be found in the Classical World. The Fourth Samnite War, fought between the Roman Republic and the final defiant elements of Samnium who refused to acknowledge Roman rule, was fraught with mistakes and counterproductive missteps on both sides of the conflict. Even without modern telecommunications, public perception and propaganda had their parts to play in the ancient world. Though it is possible to recover from mistakes in public relations, it is not common.

This makes the actions of a Roman officer, Quintus Cingulatus Atellus, all the more remarkable.

Atellus served as a Tribune of Quintus Sertorius, commander of the Sixth Legion. Known for his competence and ambition, Atellus was often sent by his commander to resolve particularly troublesome issues, whether they were in the camp of the legion itself or cities that needed to be pacified. Atellus was also well regarded by the men of the legion, and had a reputation for harsh but fair treatment. Yet, he was still human, and did make mistakes as often as he succeeded.

One mistake pointed out by historians was the destruction of the twin towns of Aeclanum and Aequum Tuticum. While the destruction and pacification of these towns were a military success, this success would come to hamper Atellus' efforts in the future. For reasons unknown to modern history, Atellus spared the life of a priestess of a local religion. This priestess would become a small rallying point of resistance among the Samnite people, and specifically named Atellus as an enemy of Samnium. This reputation would cling to Atellus, even as he and Sertorius attempted to incorporate Samnium into the Roman Republic.

Yet it is also to Atellus' great credit that he could, in some instances, overcome this negative reputation in accomplishing his tasks as assigned by Sertorius. The commander of the legion would give Atellus half of his men to pacify the region of Pentri. Surviving accounts credit Atellus for successfully establishing a basic level of Roman law despite repeated attacks by Gemino, a man whose own campaigns against the Sixth Legion are held as a case study of asymmetric warfare. Atellus is perhaps more famously known for what was proclaimed as a brilliant piece of public relations and rhetoric, sometimes labeled by modern history as the "Sword and Hand" speech. What survives of the speech only survives in pieces, but it was apparently strong enough to sway a famous stronghold of anti-Roman sentiment to throw their support towards Atellus. As he was the highest local representative of Roman law, in turn Atellus gained some amount of fame for turning the homeland of his nemesis, Gemino of the Pentri, against him.

The irony was not lost on Gemino as his final encounter with Atellus drew closer..."

Not sure how well the first piece comes across. As it turns out, emulating an ancient historian's writing style is hard. :( Who knew?
 
@Telamon have you see the questions regarding the lack of our Command-Training from Tercerus this round? Did we instead gain the boost to the Gallic Cavalry?

My mistake. I'll add one soon.

Given actual historians can't make one themselves, nope.:p

But I can!

5— Only conquers part of his homeland/cultural region. Is often not exceedingly remarkable on the historical stage, or is overshadowed by his descendants. See: Phyrrus of Epirus.

4 — Conquers his entire homeland/cultural region, or subjugates a foreign land. Is often more remarkable for what his descendants did than he himself. See: Merovech, Rurik, Osman, Philip of Macedon, and William the Conqueror.

3 — Conquers an entire region/unites his homeland, then expands significantly from that initial conquest, threatening surrounding states and often absorbing weaker neighbors. See: Mithridates, Saladin, and Robert Guiscard.

2.5 — Wars against a foreign land and is defeated, but is immortalized historically by his enemies/due to his martial skill and cultural legacy. See: Hannibal, Attila the Hun.

2 — Conquers a significant amount of the continent, outright defeating several powerful neighbors. Goes down in history as one of the greatest of his dynasty, if not of his nation. See: Mehmed the Conqueror, Gaius Julius Caesar, Alp Arslan Seljuk, Xerxes the Great, Justinian the Great, and Tamerlane.

1 — Conquers vast swaths of their continent, subjugating entire regions and peoples, defeats several powerful enemies, and permanently and irrevocably shapes the fate of the world. Their names are usually household names, if only for their feats. Those who come after are but candles to their flame. See: Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, and Napoleon.
 
Last edited:
My mistake. I'll add one soon.



But I can!

5— Only conquers part of his homeland/cultural region. Is often not exceedingly remarkable on the historical stage, or is overshadowed by his descendants. See: Phyrrus of Epirus.

4 — Conquers his entire homeland/cultural region, or subjugates a foreign land. Is often more remarkable for what his descendants did than he himself. See: Merovech, Rurik, Osman, Philip of Macedon, and William the Conqueror.

3 — Conquers an entire region/unites his homeland, then expands significantly from that initial conquest, threatening surrounding states and often absorbing weaker neighbors. See: Mithridates, Saladin, and Robert Guiscard.

2.5 — Wars against a foreign land and is defeated, but is immortalized historically by his enemies/due to his martial skill and cultural legacy. See: Hannibal, Attila the Hun.

2 — Conquers a significant amount of the continent, outright defeating several powerful neighbors. Goes down in history as one of the greatest of his dynasty, if not of his nation. See: Mehmed the Conqueror, Gaius Julius Caesar, Alp Arslan Seljuk, Xerxes the Great, Justinian the Great, and Tamerlane.

1 — Conquers vast swaths of their continent, subjugating entire regions and peoples, defeats several powerful enemies, and permanently and irrevocably shapes the fate of the world. Their names are usually household names, if only for their feats. Those who come after are but candles to their flame. See: Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, and Napoleon.

Where does ozymandias fall in these?
 
Back
Top