Alexander the Great vs Basarab I

I’ve spent decades working with Arrian and Plutarch, and I must say this comparison is fascinating but deeply anachronistic. Alexander’s military score is fair—he never lost a battle and his use of the phalanx and Companion cavalry at Gaugamela was a masterpiece of combined arms. But to give Basarab I a 92 in military is generous; his victory at Posada was a strategic ambush, not a campaign of conquest. And the political score for Alexander (65) is spot-on—his empire relied on his personal charisma, as Curtius Rufus noted, and it shattered upon his death. Basarab’s 88 in politics reflects his state-building, but let’s not forget Alexander’s cultural legacy: the Hellenistic age shaped the Roman world, while Wallachia remained a regional player. Still, it’s a good reminder that historical impact isn’t just about battlefield statistics.

Okay, so I’ve been binging Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History and reading some Mary Beard, and this comparison is wild but I kinda get it. Alexander’s military score is insane—96! He crushed Persia like it was nothing. But Basarab I? Never heard of him before, but a 92 in military for ambushing some Hungarians in a mountain pass? That feels like a participation trophy. But then Alexander’s political score is only 65? That seems low—like, he literally built cities and spread Greek culture! But I guess his empire didn’t last. Meanwhile Basarab’s 88 in politics because he made Wallachia a thing? Sure, but Alexander’s influence (90) trumps that. Cool to think about how different eras measure success—sometimes I wonder if we overhype ancient conquerors.

Let’s break this down tactically. Alexander’s 96 is justified: at Gaugamela (331 BC), he deployed the phalanx as an anvil and the Companion cavalry as a hammer, exploiting a gap in Darius’s line—a textbook example of decisive cavalry shock. His logistical feat of crossing the Hindu Kush with 50,000 troops is underappreciated. Basarab’s 92, however, seems inflated. Posada (1330) was a classic ambush in the Carpathian defiles—effective, yes, but against a Hungarian army that was overextended and poorly scouted. It’s a defensive victory, not a campaign of maneuver. For comparison, Alexander’s siege of Tyre (332 BC) required complex siegecraft and naval coordination, which Basarab never faced. The political score gap (65 vs 88) reflects that Alexander built no lasting institutions, while Basarab established a feudal dynasty. But in military terms, Alexander is in a different league—96 vs 92 is too close.

这个比较很有意思，但西方中心主义很明显。亚历山大是希腊化时代的征服者，类似中国的秦始皇，但秦始皇统一六国后建立了郡县制，亚历山大却靠联姻和分封维持统治，结果帝国瓦解。而巴萨拉布一世更像五代十国时期的割据军阀，比如钱镠建立吴越国，通过外交和防御在乱世中生存。但中国历史上像刘裕这样以少胜多的将领很多，巴萨拉布在波萨达的伏击战并不罕见。另外，亚历山大的影响力（90分）被高估了，希腊化文化在中亚的影响远不如中国汉朝对西域的辐射。如果按中国史学的标准，亚历山大的政治分可能只有50，因为他缺乏制度创新，而巴萨拉布作为一个边疆领主的抵抗精神值得肯定，但总分不应超过70。

我仔细看了这个评分系统，觉得军事分数有问题。亚历山大96分可以理解，因为他从未败过，但巴萨拉布一世92分？我算了一下，他只有一场关键战役（波萨达战役，1330年），而且是一场伏击战，对手是匈牙利王国，不是波斯帝国那样庞大的对手。对比中国历史，曹操在官渡之战以少胜多，击败袁绍，但军事评分不会给到92，因为他的整体战绩有起伏。亚历山大政治65分太低，他的帝国虽短命，但希腊化城邦体系持续了数百年，类似秦朝统一度量衡的影响。巴萨拉布政治88分偏高，他建立的瓦拉几亚公国只是地区政权，没有像唐朝那样辐射整个东亚。我认为亚力山大的政治分应接近70，巴萨拉布军事应降至80左右。