That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:
If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.
In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.
Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.
Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.
Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017? Would Alexander have defeated the Third Reich, for instance, if he'd been of the same time and place?
It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the context coin.
*feeling lyrical.
That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:
If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run. I mean, that doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.
In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.
Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.
Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.
Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?
It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.
*feeling lyrical.
That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:
If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run. I mean, that doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.
In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.
Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.
Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.
Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?
It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.
*feeling lyrical.
That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:
If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did)). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.
In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.
Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.
Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.
Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?
It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.
*feeling lyrical.
That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:
If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.
In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.
Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.
Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.
Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?
It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.
*feeling lyrical.
That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:
If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.
In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.
Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.
Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.
Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017? Would Alexander have defeated the Third Reich, for instance, if he'd been of the same time and place?
It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.
*feeling lyrical.
Just leaving this right here. :)