"My main reason for not choosing the superb Alexander is exactly this: he started with his dad's very decent army and allies. There is no doubting what he went on to do with it."

Flashman - actually, although Alexander started with a decent army that had been overhauled by Philip of Macedon, it was Alexander who did much of the training and new tactics. He introduced the Companion cavalry, using a wedge shape to drive into the Iranian cavalary at Gaugamela, despite facing odds of 15-1, and winning. He incorporated slingers and archers from Parthia and Babylon into his army, revolutionising it from a phalanx based unit, into a versatile and quick moving army.

Alexander started with a country (Macedonia) that was relatively weak, and controlled only a small part of the Mediterrenean. He finished with an army that incorporated all of the Eastern Med, Turkey, much of the Middle East in Mesopotamia, Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush (modern Pakistan and North West India).

He literally stretched the boundaries of the Hellenic World. All Greek scholars believed the world was limited, and that the Persians were barbarians from the edge of the world. Alexander found that there were tribes and countries well beyond Persia. He conquered all that he saw, and never lost a battle. The influence of Greek civilisation can still be seen today in Mesopotamia and Turkey.

Alexander was not called 'the Great' for no reason.

not including that -1, it's

16 Khan
12 Bismarck
5 Alexander

and as for Khan coming before Alexander. yeah, that's a great reason. neither Alexander nor Bismarck could have done that without their technology advantages! Alexander came -1500 years after Khan! that's so many centuries later! and Bismarck had a huge technological advantage over all of his enemies - only ALL of his enemies had superior technology!

omg this thread is down 5 places! i'm bumping it; sorry about the double post.

bump again

@ dangermouse:
chuck norris doesn't play diplomacy, he roundhouse kicks the other six players and wins.

unless he's playing the computer. if he smashed the keyboard the computer wouldn't recieve a signal and declare an NMR.

1 more for Bismarck.

Has someone presented a persuasive argument for Bismark yet? Why is he so popular?

yes, people have repeatedly offered persuasive arguments for bismark. he took on the one project which was really frightening to the established powers of europe - the unification of german speaking people, which would result in the wealthiest, most productive, most populated, most technolically advanced nation in europe. he did so not only with tacit approval from the english and french, but he masterfully engineered quick defeats of the obstacles to unification in vienna and paris. in addition to unifying germany, his diplomatic approach allowed for the balance of power in europe at a time where it was critical - allowing the financial, industrial, technological advances to really take hold. in no small sense, bismark helped engineered the stability that allowed for the modern world to really take off.

rather, approval of the english & russian.

/me applauds the level of discussion this thread has reached. Some very good arguments in here.

I'm supporting the critics of flashman on the (very good argumented) post of obiwanobiwan

To answer cgwhite:

Ok, Alexander changed some tactics of the army, but his father did most of the work. Second, I wouldn't call Macedonia weak at that time. It controlled the Balkan, Greece, and other parts in the Mediterranian area.

Let's see where Genghis started. Mongolian tribes at the time of his birth were raided by Tartars, payed indemnities to Chinese, quarrelled amongst their own people and were considered as morons. Alexander may have started with a 'weak' nation, Genghis didn't even have a tribe to begin. He only got some support from his brothers and loyals. He ended up uniting all Mongolians to a mighty force, conquering by far stronger nations and larger armies. He also kept his ppl together and satisfied, a thing Alexander had more trouble with. I also believe Alexander may have suffered an imperial overstretch, the reason his empire was divided after his death. Genghis' empire was even extended after his death, and also divided later on, but amongst his sons, which was tradition, not due to quarreling.

I reckon the greatness of Hellenistic culture that Alexander spread. But didn't Genghis do the same? At first, he civilised most of his people, a nomadic folk. Then, he spread it over his empire, with China as greatest example. Alexander didn't have to 'civilise' his people.

With this I don't wanna bring down Alexander, I find him a worthy 2nd after the great Khan. But I think Genghis should win, cause he started with literally nothing, having to build up all himself, and eventualy becoming the greatest conqueror ever, while Alexander had his army, culture, ... built up already. That's the greatest difference according to me.

I must disagree to Salamenser.
The Chinese were far more civilized than the Mongols at the time. Actually, the Mongols had to use most of the policies of the Chinese.
The Mongols were far from being 'civilized'. If they were they wouldn't allow Mongolians to hit Chinese people while the Chinese were prohibited from retributing.
I must agree that the uniting of the Mongols was a very mighty achievement on Genghis' account, but after he united them he simply wiped out nearly the whold of Asia and put the innocent civilians under extraordinarily tight policing measures and extremely unfair treatment to the conquered.
Well, Genghis did have a large empire, but of which almost all out of force. Only the starting bit about uniting the Mongols did he use some diplomacy.
Anyway his country went to CD at 17 units...

That's my point Gobble, Genghis brought civilisation onto his ppl first.

you've just told us how good he was and why we should vote!!!!!

I think we have to reach a logical end to this thread- I say Khan has won

so do i

Without doubt.

I'd hate to have to be the person to tell him he'd lost...

Responding to responses to my post: When I say the Roman Empire sprung, in a sense, form Alexander, I do not mean literally, but almost as a, sxhall we say, "spititual" sucessor? Alexander wanted to leave a lasting legacy, spread the Hellenistic culture, and fortify and protect the domain of the actually fledgling Macedonian state (pretty small without the conquered lands.) Rome wanted all those things- glory was a central theme in Roman society, they always imposed their culture, albeit while absorbing portions of other culutures, and they bagen conquering in almsost sef-defense. Sure, there was the desire form the begining, but honestly: with Gauls to the north, who sacked Rome itself in 510 B.C., Etruscans and Greeks to the South, Macedonians/Selucids (depending on the time) to their east across the Adriatic Sea, and Carthage already established deeper south, the Romans NEEDED to conquer. Much like Germany, they werelandlocked, and had to expand to survive.

And personality-wise, who in Roman history reminds us of Alexander? Who was ambitious, from high-noble birth, a brilliant general, popular.......... Caesar. Certainly by 100 B.C., the year of Caesar's birth, Alexander was in the history books, or, ahem, "scrolls." Can you honestly say a man like Casear, educated, rich, and ambitious, could not have gotten the ideas of conquest, imperialism, and the vision of a glorious emperor without just a bit of thought Alexander's way? It would be saying a modern politician could not have gotten any ideas form Honset Abe Lincoln.

I hope the vote continues- i just can see Khan being diplomatic. If this were Risk or Chess, maybe, but reasoning and Khan........?

We all need to re-assess our knowledge. I will certainly be reading a lot more about Alexander after this and related threads. I realise that I do not know much about what he was like as a man and, quite simply, he fascinates me.

i don't get why you can't see Khan being diplomatic and reasoning after all that we've written about him and how he exercised his brain and charisma. maybe its because you just refuse to realize that the initial impression of Khan that you had, probably from movies and the like was wrong?

obiwan, maybe that is all true, but is Alexander a great diplomat because of that? Because Caesar wanted to be like him?

Final scores:
Khan 16
Bismarck 13
Alexander 5

Kahn is pronounced the winner! I dont think this vote has much energy left and to me i think its clear the kahnists have won so i say that we call it a day. Kahn is the Greates Diplomacy Player of all Time!!!!!!

Khan adds PhpDiplomacy to his list of conquered territories!

I did say earlier in the thread that the voting ends when there are no votes in a 48-hour period. Rexx78 correctly declared the winner.

Alexander definitely. He knew how to make friends, and could hold a serious grudge, which, for me at least, is a serious aspect of my Diplomacy play.

+1 Alexander

I think he could read as well... ;)

Congratulations to Genghis Khan.

*sigh*...

someone remind me which idiots eliminated Machiavelli?

I did an IMDB search on all three. Fame controls a lot of attention even in Diplomacy. From that I decided that I would give the slight nod to Khan. His name turned up more results than the other two. Followed by Alexander and then Otto. I would give Otto a negative score cause he doesn't even have a true movie about him. A shame really. But ohh well.