ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 มิ.ย. 2013
- Historian Barry Strauss tells the story of three great soldier-statesmen of the ancient world-Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar-and discusses what they can teach us today about ambition, leadership, strategy, and more.
Barry Strauss is filling my TH-cam feed. Cool stuff. He rocks.
This kind of content is what TH-cam is *for*. Wonderful.
Barry Strauss & Dr.Kenneth Harl of Tulane are a delight to listen to on Roman history!
Thank you!
I'm glad that I listened. I enjoyed it. Thank you for sharing this knowledge.
fantastic, bravo
This is a good lecture.
Great lecture. Loved it.
Many thanks!
Dr Strauss
Please enlighten us
How did Rome build all that wonderful stuff in England unopposed? Thoughts are welcome.
I purchased his books The Spartacus war and Masters of Command Alexander,Hannibal and Caesar.
It's better to read Strauss than to listen. His liberal editorial remarks as well as that pattern of punctuated words as he ends a sentence is extremely annoying!
He doesnt specify that Hannibals elephants were not those we are familiar with today but two extinct smaller species, nonetheless, awkward beasts.
Why do I hear conflicted info on the elephants? I hear they all survived the trip and they all died except the one Hannibal rode.
Coin of Alexander with horns is representation of himself as God of War-Ares (Mars), not Zeus (Jupiter).
💚
Wonder why Strauss skipped Genghis Khan. According to the writer Jack Weatherford as in this link to the video, Genghis Khan has to be the greatest leader of all those four. I agree with Weatherford having listened to both videos:
th-cam.com/video/7U_OWX_gwE4/w-d-xo.html
Because he's talking about the WEST
Alexander modeled himself on Cyrus the Great, declaring himself his rightful heir! How can one miss that?
Armchair quarterbacking. If Rome could be sacked by the Goths in 410 and still survive, I highly doubt Hannibal with no siege equipment could have done any better. Any old legend that has gotten really old with the scholarship we have today.
I can't appreciate his modern day examples. There is no comparison.
Man this guy need to improve his public speaking. But I absolutely loved the book.
Comparing a weazle like BEZOS to anybody of greatness is an offence. The billionaires of today are cowards who will never fight a war themselves, furthermore they don't IMPROVE society. BEZOS is right now crushing small business in his attempt to be the world's supermarket and in doing so he is impoverishing the majority of mankind. HARDLY a person of greatness.
YES I thought how frikkin insulting! This guy has his moments but he's mostly talking about men who today he would have nothing but contempt for. I dislike his editorial comments and uh uh uh He's totally annoying.
He just said julius caesar was not a great tactician...
+nymersic Caesar was a great tactician to. Just read about the battle of Ruspina and tell me, what other general could have managed to do what Caesar did there?
+Braila2000 or the siege of alesia, he built a fortification to hold vercengettorix in and another one to hold his reinforcements out. he was commanding two battles at once.
+mega zack i just gave him one example. Caesar had many brilliant battles.
I'll note that Alexander was operating much further away from home than Caesar was.
Rheagar Targaryen outside of Alesia, he wasn't. Learn the difference between strategy and tactics.
South eastern turkey is not controlled by terrorist but is disputed by the native Kurds. He dont know anything, jesus.
youre wrong Stive!!!
How?
There are Kurds, then Kurds then there are Kurds.
Each of the different Kurdish groups are only linked through ethnic kinship and separated by the borders have developed vastly different societies. The Iraqi Kurdish peoples looking to be one of the better forces in the middle east. Then you have the Syrian Kurds, who are largely atheistic and communists Relations between them and their Iraqi brethren has been so good that during fighting, the Iraqi Kurds have deliberately cut off food and ammunition supplies from Iraqi to Syria, in order to gain leverage and / or act as a punitive measure for some of the Syrian Kurds actions.
Then you have the Turkish Kurks who most resemble a standard ethnic terrorist movement, like the IRA, or the Basque's. They are a minority group, whom because of this are treated differently, though are the majority in most of part of the territory that they occupy. Short of either side willing to agree to a political settlement, violence is employed by both sides to try and influence the other with brute force.
Since the arming of the Kurds has de facto taken place in the middle east, in the fight against isis, the next war is pretty much guaranteed to be a civil war within Turkey given the Turks seemingly doing everything they possibly can to agitate the Kurdish population, such as disbanding the political party representing the Kurds in order to gain a majority so President Gollum could grant himself new powers via a constitutional change.
Putin won't be willing to help Assad re-conquer the Kurdish populations, given the cost to Russia the conflict has already presented them with. Assad may not agree, but there is a reason that Saddam, and Assad senior used chemical weapons on mountain peoples... because without them, they would never be able to re-conquer them without massive cost.
The only silver lining for Assad would be that he could turn and ally the Kurds purely as revenge against Turkey for its actions during the war, along with support, for returning Northern sections of Syria held by Kurdish forces.
The main point... you better bloody get used to hearing the Kurds being called terrorists as they've got worse PR in the future due to this.
Hey Barry! Tell us the story about throwing Romans tossing slaves into a pool of giant LAMPREYS. Boiy, those Romans were a criuel bunch of M.F's--e weren't they (alomost as bas a Trump--who roasts people alive as a "groupie"--OMG!)
predictable storytelling, not very much insight
Pithy analysis.
The modern examples are super weak, it's painful.
Putting Alexander in same league as Hannibal and Caesar... what an insult. Alexander accomplished his goals 300 to 400 years before them two even existed... and he never lost a battle, and led from the front. Your an bias ignorant historian.
MrMonikura "Them two"? You do mean biased not "bias". Stop being such an ignorant pleb and understand the larger picture this Gentleman is painting.
Alexander conquered more than Caesar but in the end Caesar is more relevant in world's history since he has been crucial in the birth of the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire lasted for centuries and its legacy is certainly larger than that of the Empire of Alexander.
Obviously you have not study Alexander Magnificent road to conquest? 12Years of war and he conquered 90% of the known world! And most importantly never lost a battle... he falls in that unique category invisible army. All that achieved age 33yrs of age -- mind you this was 300 to 400 years before Ceasar or Hannibal -- every major general or king, leader measure themselves to Alexander... honestly speaking they admit themselves they fall short of King Alexander. Who was and still is the towering golden standard to whom all great men of power and influence compare themselves too.
There an element of truth in that... nonetheless we are all entitled to our own opinions!