The three most important candidates are undoubtedly Alexander the great, Hannibal Barcas and Julius Gaius Caesar.
I would like to make Hannibal lose weight first, because he has had impressive victories and daring campaigns in his name, but has also dropped a lot of opportunities.He has held for years in the Italian boot without even doing a throw to the conquest of Rome or in another way to consolidate his position. And compared to the other two, his personal leadership in the struggle was also less decisive.
Caesar argues that we know most of him, and that in addition to his own reports, the testimonies of his officers and soldiers demonstrate his leadership qualities.He certainly finished his job and achieved some very impressive victories.
However, even in the most conservative readings, Alexander achieved victories over an opponent who was many times strong than himself-and at least as well trained and armed as his army.
I would rather not quote his whole life story here, but know this.
Born as a son of a farmer, no ambition in life, and ultimately Emperor of the Roman Empire.Yes, he was very lucky, but his rise to the top started with a series of field tours in which he proved himself to be a very capable general.
As an emperor, he ended the civil war and restored the economy.When Rome was in 鈧?虄puin He gave to anyone who wanted permission to buy land and set up something beautiful, which proved to be very effective. He also began building the now world-famous Colosseum.
And Best of all?He was honest, and sparingly. He did not enter the sea with bribe, and did not like fraud. With this he gained a lot of respect, which helped him during the Civil War. However, this does not mean that he did not like money, because here he could never have enough of it. He also loved joking, and never forgot where he came from; A simple farmhouse in the Italian countryside.
And you never hear anything about him.
But before he became Emperor He was a general, a very good field gentleman.
In any case, I know that Julius Caesar scores better than Alexander the great.
Why? Alex didn’t stop, he was addicted to the war. Julius cashed in the victory and became Emperor of the Roman Empire. Alexander died of a disease during his treks and the Empire fell apart.
Although Julius was also murdered during his reign, he had successfully crowned his military career.Admittedly, he cried because he could not match Alex’s conquests, but in essence he was bigger because he knew when to stop.
Edit: OK, according to Jeroen and others, no wood is right.Mea culpa. No more upvotes for these infixes please. It is true that many field men could become quite addicted to playing the war.
Answer from Cornelis Zandbergen op were Kain and Abel married?If so, where did the women come from?
Answer from Cornelis Zandbergen op can you regret getting children?Is this something that you can tell your child?
The classical time?I once read that the time difference between the construction of the Cheops Pyramide and the existence of Queen Cleopatra of Egypt is greater than the time difference between the age of her existence and NOW.