2006-08-01 11:06:06 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
This is a very interesting question indeed. Who was grander? Alexander the Great is a very easy choice after all, he did conquer the most of the know world in his time. And he was a great general no question about it. Ramses on the other hand, He was a general too. He did also won spectaculars victories but he also knew defeat. Something that Alexander never knew. Ramses was a Great builder. Most of his buildings( temples, statues) survives to this day. Of Alexander very little survives (a city named after him, some statues and his father tomb) And he had a short life. Ramses II ruled for 66 years and he also did the earliest know peace treaty in world history. In the end Ramses did leave a more firm legacy after his death than Alexander(who's empire broke down as soon as he died) In short Alexander is the greatest general and a great conqueror, But in question of ruling and everything else, Ramesses II is the superior.
2006-08-01 12:05:25 · answer #1 · answered by Sakura ♥ 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Alexander! His military daring and leadership led him to be the leader of a huge empire. He held together an army for years with nothing more than the promise of adventure and pride in victory. Without getting into lots of detail, he repeatedly won in battles where the odds were stacked against him, and he did it using the enemies' misunderstanding of themselves to his advantage. He brought a small, weak nation to the fore in the ancient world.
I agree that Egypt was a great nation at one point, but Alexander conquered that nation and named a city after himself!
2006-08-01 11:46:37 · answer #2 · answered by OverAnalyze 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ramses the Great probably had more impact, but he lived to be 93, so he had much more time to do it in. Alexander the Great conquered much more land, but he was only 33 when he died. His empire only lasted as long as he did--it was divided up among his generals after he died. Ramses left a more visible impact, by building so many statues and temples.
2006-08-02 06:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Big Al, as he was called by me and the rest of his closest friends was the Big Kahuna. Rameses never conquered Macedonia, but Alexander did conquer Egypt.
And Lorrie, you twit, Rome had nothing to do with Alexander. Alexander was from Macedonia, but I guess to you it's all "over there" so it must be the same thing. Don't they have world history in school anymore?
2006-08-01 11:11:35 · answer #4 · answered by martin b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alexander the Great; I prefer his military exploits over Ramsses II.
2006-08-01 11:09:48 · answer #5 · answered by Hidden 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That could be neither or both for the correct answer. At the time that both ruled, wasn't each considered head of the WORLD POWER on earth at that time? So, then back in their respective time periods, each WAS considered great. But right now in History, Great Britain and the United States are the dual WORLD POWER so how great they were did nothing lasting as far WORLD POWER for their countries of Egypt and Rome today.
2006-08-01 11:11:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WOW!!! awesome question, Since I know little of both, I will go with Alexander, only because I have heard more of him thatn Ramesses.
2006-08-02 10:31:41 · answer #7 · answered by nemraC 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is has got to be Ramesses. His empire, the Egyptian empire lasted centuries. Alexander's, with all its great expanse, largely died with him.
2006-08-01 11:20:22 · answer #8 · answered by MARK M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alexander's coquest went from Greece all the way India.
Ramesses never went out of Egypt.
2006-08-01 13:55:11 · answer #9 · answered by 8upcoaldigger69 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is something you can look up for yourself. But Alexander the Really Swell conquered the world (all of it he knew about, at least). So that means he killed more people. So that makes him great!
2006-08-01 11:10:35 · answer #10 · answered by Day of Acerbity 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋