Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EWC3, post: 4500297, member: 93416&quot;]Thanks. Its odd how we chose our particular stance on such things. Nero seems to me (personally) forgivable – like what would happen if you made John Lennon king. I enjoyed the Cicero books by Robert Harris – but a different side of him came out when I saw him interviewed on TV. Harris really really really hates Caesar. Seemed a bit weird to me…….</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Yeah. I recall reading about the night before he fought Delhi. He had 15,000 men. I forget the Delhi side - 200,000 plus elephants perhaps? So – the night before battle Richard III was asleep in his tent. But nobody slept in Tamerlane’s army. Each contingent were sitting at their fire, and all night Tamerlane went from fire to fire, building up the confidence of his men. But I never really understood the guy.</p><p><br /></p><p>As far as I can tell - Ghengis Khan seems to have seen things very much in black and white. If his generals took a city, and accepted their surrender, that was OK. If the city then broke their word, he just killed the general and sent another. After a false start, generals figured out it was always safest just to kill everybody.</p><p><br /></p><p>The guy that left the biggest impression on me however was Ala-ud-Din Muhammed Khalji. (Delhi, 1296-1315) Perhaps just because we have better accounts of his doings? Diocletian could not get the economy to work, but the same was child’s play to Ala-ud-din. A king of India who sent a letter to the Mongol Khan, scoffing at his puny efforts.</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in