Greatest ruler of antiquity

Sep 2014
These people whatever they believe exist because of the Renaissance. There was still war in so called Christian countries but they stopped being in the name of God, and they built on the science.
Jan 2015
In Cyrus' defence, he had to conquer several foes, rather than just decapitating an existing empire. And, besides just the conquest, he actually made it into an empire that survived a few centuries. That points to him being a statesman in ways that Alexander did not demonstrate.

But honestly, they're just hard to compare. Alexander died young, so his achievements were cut off - but so were potential mistakes and the consequences of mistakes he already had made. And there is just so little material about Cyrus compared to Alexander, it's simply incredibly hard to say what the man actually did himself and how much of a direct influence the force of his character was.
Like the next poster points out, those all seem to be arguments against Cyrus in this comparison. We know less about so Cyrus, so he somehow gets more credit? Huh? He had to face smaller coalitions, and took longer, so he was better? Huh?
Mar 2018
Like the next poster points out, those all seem to be arguments against Cyrus in this comparison. We know less about so Cyrus, so he somehow gets more credit? Huh? He had to face smaller coalitions, and took longer, so he was better? Huh?
I wasn't arguing that Cyrus was greater than Alexander - you are not obliged to take every comment as a personal attack.
Mar 2013
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Philosophy literally means in Greek, Love of wisdom or love of sophistry, sophistry was debate, .....(....)
What is the Aussie slang for “completely bollocks and nonsense”? – Is it this: “Kangaroo-bongoo-dumboo”?;)

First of all you are horrible ill-informed: Philosophy doesn’t mean love of sophistry. Sophistry is a negative term that means people are using false tricks and arguments to get right without consideration of ethic. It is a negative term.

Secondly, you claim that Jesus invented the idea of a father in heaven to delegitimize the secular force. Haven’t you heard the story of Jesus where he responding that "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" when asking whether people should pay tax or not? Furthermore, the Christians VERY CLEARLY distinguish between this earthly world and the heavenly paradise. Very strictly and that was the reason why Roman/Byzantine emperors always had power over the patriarch. Always!.

Thirdly, you claim that Christianity “extinguished free thinking philosophy, education and science, in order”

Us who are trained historians, or us who at least have consulted academic works would tell you that you are dead wrong. So let me just quote renowned historians of science that refute your nonsense:

“For all of his worry about overvaluing the Greek scientific/philosophical tradition, Augustine and others like him applied Greco- Roman natural science with a vengeance to biblical interpretation. The sciences are not to be loved, but to be used. This attitude toward scientific knowledge was to flourish throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern period. Were it not for this outlook, medieval Europeans would surely have had less scientific knowledge, not more.”

Source: "Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion" on page 18 by Ronald Numbers and David Lindberg.

“The handmaiden concept of Greek learning was widely adopted and became the standard Christian attitude toward secular learning. That Christians chose to accept pagan learning within limits was a momentous decision. They might have heeded Tertullian (ca. 150-ca. 225) who asked pointedly, “what indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” With the total triumph of Christianity at the end of the fourth century, the Church might have reacted against Greek pagan learning in general, and Greek philosophy in particular, finding much in the latter that was unacceptable or perhaps even offensive. They might have launched a major effort to suppress pagan learning as a danger to the Church and its doctrines. But they did not. Why not? Perhaps it was in the slow dissemination of Christianity. After four centuries as members of a distinct religion, Christians had learned to live with Greek secular learning and to utilize it for their own benefit. Their education was heavily infiltrated by Latin and Greek pagan literature and philosophy…(…) Although Christians found certain aspects of pagan culture and learning unacceptable, they did not view them as a cancer to be cut out of the Christian body.”

Source: “The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages” in Page 4 by Edward Grant.

And if one looks at the map of Medieval continental Europe then it is clear that while Christian states are the advanced ones the Pagans states were the deeply primitive ones, and it was first after conversion to Christianity that they gained access to the classical learning which was preserved, studied and improved by monks and Byzantines. For further elaboration read beneath here and confront your prejudice and ahistorical nonsense:

The primitive Pagan barbarians and Christianization: a detour?

....Historians debate whether the....
No they don’t. You should not confuse your gut feeling with “historians”.

I am not a historian of science as I am just a trained historian and work at the University library, but I do intend to read into history of science, and due to the access I have to the university library I have virtually consulted/scrutinized (almost) all the available works of renowned historians of science such of David C. Linberg, Edward Grant, Michael H. Shank and Ronald Numbers, and they would all refute your bullocks. So would Medieval/Byzantine scholars such of Peter Brown, Chris Wickham, Judith Herrin and Averill Cameron.

And here I have only listed English-speaking scholars since I have left out Danish and Swedish scholars.

Feel free to provide quotes and your sources for your “historians”. Then I would go and check them in the university library. I particularly want source from scholars (either employed as historian in an University or is an emeritus/emerita). - Keep in mind that journalists, “coin expert” or some webpage of neo-atheistic losers are not considered as source in the academia.

Good luck.
Last edited:
Jul 2017
Greatest ruler doesn't necessarily solely encompass conquest, to be fair. Alexander's "rule", such as it was, was fairly limited due to his death in his early thirties. If Alexander was the better general, Philip was maybe the better king, at least for the Macedonians.

I'd probably throw my vote in now for Augustus, my personal favourite being the emperor Severus. Maybe Philip of Macedonia as well.
Likes: Gvelion
Mar 2014
A tie between Thutmosis III,Supiluiluma and Sargon of Akkad.

They single handed created (in Thutmosis III restored) the egyptian,hittite and akkadian empires.

Enviado de meu E6603 usando o Tapatalk
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions