Griffith and Alexander the great?

I dont knoww how accurate this comparison is, but i have been wondering (I could very well be wrong) but i see alot of characteristics between Griffith and Alexander the great.

Just looking through a brief history of the guy i cant help but see alot of similar traits between the two men so i have to wonder.

Alexander the great was known for physical strength, courage, arrogance, extreme intelligence particularly on the battlefield, charismatic, physically handsome and most importantly, unbridled ambition. People would say he was nothing short of brilliant and amazed many even today. At an early age of 21 he was already ready to conquer the world.

Though unlike griffith he had a fairly good backround, but when he was taking over countrys he didnt have much money, little supplys and not a huge army for what he was plannning to do. He threw himself into the very worst of the battle, his troops grew intensely loyal because of his bravery.

He was said to be a brilliant and selfless person even though a bastard, probably one of the most brilliant military leaders in human history and by within 10 years he took over basically all of the known world and had not once lost a battle.

Like i said i could be wrong but so many of those traits and even history sound so much like griffiths in many ways. Even now he is thought of as a prodigy among prodigy's, and im pretty sure thats like Griffith.
If i am mistaken or hard to believe at all then someone tell me otherwise.
 
Ok, just some points about Alexander the Great.
First of all Alexander the Great didn't only have the best known tutor - Aristotel but he was also a prince, the son king Philip.
His father was another great millitary strategist and I guess Alexander inherited all this millitary genious from his influences.
Anyway Alexander was not famous of his handsomeiness and physical strength. He was famous for his guts, millitary mind and high leadership.
 
xechnao said:
Alexander was not famous of his handsomeiness and physical strength. He was famous for his guts, millitary mind and high leadership.

I have only read stuff about him recently, and the things about his physical characteristics in strength and looks and charisma among other things have been brought up several times, probably his numerious positive characteristics made him "the great".
If you dont want to take my word for it i can find an address on his history where it says otherwise, but more to the point do you think there is a connection?
 
Sparnage said:
I have only read stuff about him recently, and the things about his physical characteristics in strength and looks and charisma among other things have been brought up several times, probably his numerious positive characteristics made him "the great".
Again: Alexander wasn't famous for his physical strength. Cunningness yes and all the others I said, but not physical strength as the mythological character Hercules was as we might say. Again this doesn't mean that he was weak or not strong enough.
He has been "the great" because he conquered half the known world.
Sparnage said:
If you dont want to take my word for it i can find an address on his history where it says otherwise, but more to the point do you think there is a connection?
Find that address. As far as to the point are you suggesting that Miura was influenced from Alexander to the character of Griffith?


 
xechnao said:
Again: Alexander wasn't famous for his physical strength. Cunningness yes and all the others I said, but not physical strength as the mythological character Hercules was as we might say. Again this doesn't mean that he was weak or not strong enough.
He has been "the great" because he conquered half the known world. Find that address.

Your very stubborn, you couldnt just take my word for it could you? well here are some:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ALEX.HTM
http://1stmuse.com/frames/index.html
http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/03.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8740/Alexander.htm

As far as to the point are you suggesting that Miura was influenced from Alexander to the character of Griffith?

Maybe, i wouldnt have started the thread if i didnt at least suspect. Like i said though i would have believed it more if Alexander the great came from a poor backround like Griffith, however he didnt have much when he started to take over before accomplishing so much.
 
Sparnage said:
Your very stubborn, you couldnt just take my word for it could you? well here are some:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ALEX.HTM
http://1stmuse.com/frames/index.html
http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/03.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8740/Alexander.htm

These are links about Alexander the Great. When you find where it says about his profile being famous for his legendary strength give a notice because I' ve searched among the links and haven't been able to find such a thing.
 
xechnao said:
When you find where it says about his profile being famous for his legendary strength give a notice because I' ve searched among the links and haven't been able to find such a thing.

Fuck are you serious? There is evidence in each one of saying he was a very active person, said to be handsome, charismatic and anything else that was not limited to his military mind and leadership abilitys. you want me to run each one by you? Fine.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ALEX.HTM
Alexander seems to have inherited much from his brilliant father: physical courage, arrogance etc.
He had been a youth of infinite promise. Physically handsome, strong, brave, and nothing short of brilliant

http://1stmuse.com/frames/index.html

Arrian describes Alexander: the strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky, always leading his army on his faithful Bucephalus
These are just a small amount of the detail that i was talking about in the first 2 i posted, read better.

Im not saying his sub positive elements like being handsome, charismatic or strong among other things were the main source for being legendary, but they were undeniably recognized as other postive elements he possesed.

Even if there is no deliberate connection between the two men you could say the same for griffith in the same way, he was a military genious, fighter and so forth, yet on a less important note people are drawn to his charisma, and its not uncommon to hear someone say "oh Griffith so good looking" in the manga.

Anyway you long missed the point, i didnt start this thread so you could argue about irrelevant things and hold your hand through this by pointing out my statements to clarify each thing i stated for you individually.
 

Sparnage all those are descriptions who don't say Alexander was great because he was strong etch. They are just salt of somebodies' description on that great leader saying how healthy and daring he was.
Alexander was famous because of his successes, that's it. He was also a great leader of his army being in the front line on the battlefield with his fellow soldiers. I remember an incident I read when they had run out of water and somebody brang to him water from very far in a helmet. He took the helmet and poured the water on the ground in front of everybody. Then he said: " If my soldier's can't drink, I neither can't be drinking". Now you can expect how the soldiers felt about him. He inspired his soldiers raising their moral to heaven and with a small army and excellent strategic planning managed the unmanagable. This is why he became "the great".
 
He was known and prided for the things that i mentioned because it is mentioned, if it wasnt true then i wouldnt have read that when i did read about it, I didnt say it was the core of his popularity, im saying it was something else that made him stand out even more and did simply because they are remembered and mentioned even well after 2000 years, understand?
Im sure you probably do, its not too hard even for you to understand, but just like you you must find away to manipulate the argument by dismissing what i previously said, and taking 9 hours plus to answer back when you had been here several times before in order to figure out a way to manipulate it just so you can continue to argue for the sake of it, i wouldnt mind so much generally but i keep trying to say its irrelevent, your going off topic way before you were even on it, (which was never it seems).

If you got something to say on the original topic i am happy to hear it, but if you are going to stay from the topic for no good reason at all at least have the decency to say a word or two about the original point.
 
Sparnage said:
He was known and prided for the things that i mentioned because it is mentioned, if it wasnt true then i wouldnt have read that when i did read about it, I didnt say it was the core of his popularity, im saying it was something else that made him stand out even more and did simply because they are remembered and mentioned even well after 2000 years, understand?
I am saying that you unbalanced the whole impression of his image on the things mentioned. Have you seen the movie "Braveheart"? It wasn't about his strength or handsomeness (like for example Griffith is) but because of some other things. This is what I am saying. People said he was strong etchetera but it wasn't about this. There were also others strong and beautifull there. Alexander was also prided as a divine figure. It's clear people would compliment on his characteristics but this doesn't mean he was the most beautifull and strong around.
Sparnage said:
Im sure you probably do, its not too hard even for you to understand, but just like you you must find away to manipulate the argument by dismissing what i previously said, and taking 9 hours plus to answer back when you had been here several times before in order to figure out a way to manipulate it just so you can continue to argue for the sake of it, i wouldnt mind so much generally but i keep trying to say its irrelevent, your going off topic way before you were even on it, (which was never it seems).
Fuck you. My account stays logged in but I am not here. I don't have all the time for this thread.
Sparnage said:
If you got something to say on the original topic i am happy to hear it, but if you are going to stay from the topic for no good reason at all at least have the decency to say a word or two about the original point.
I mean what should I say? That Alexander and Griffith look like are not look like? I find it stupid and I also found more interesting speak about Alexander. This is why I bothered replying on this thread...
 
Braveheart was a movie, so i wouldnt know if william wallace was really said to be handsome or not, and obviously i feel stupid to continue this argument but i cant be fucked putting the same things that are still valid into new words, so ill just say the same thing as before;
He was known and prided for the things that i mentioned because it is mentioned, if it wasnt true then i wouldnt have read that when i did read about it, I didnt say it was the core of his popularity, im saying it was something else that made him stand out even more and did simply because they are remembered and mentioned even well after 2000 years, you dont understand this time then it really doesnt matter to me (which i seem to have gave you too much credit for thinking you would before).

xechnao said:
I mean what should I say? That Alexander and Griffith look like are not look like? I find it stupid and I also found more interesting speak about Alexander. This is why I bothered replying on this thread...

Christ, you have been talking here for ages about whatever and you repeated the question like you dont even know what the question is, i didnt say that they looked like eachother, i said they share many similar traits, but ill give you some knowledge for further reference; when you are not interested in the topic in the first place, you dont say anything or get involved in the first place.
 
Sparnage said:
Braveheart was a movie, so i wouldnt know if william wallace was really said to be handsome or not, and obviously i feel stupid to continue this argument but i cant be fucked putting the same things that are still valid into new words, so ill just say the same thing as before;
He was known and prided for the things that i mentioned because it is mentioned, if it wasnt true then i wouldnt have read that when i did read about it, I didnt say it was the core of his popularity, im saying it was something else that made him stand out even more and did simply because they are remembered and mentioned even well after 2000 years, you dont understand this time then it really doesnt matter to me (which i seem to have gave you too much credit for thinking you would before).Christ, you have been talking here for ages about whatever and you repeated the question like you dont even know what the question is, i didnt say that they looked like eachother, i said they share many similar traits, but ill give you some knowledge for further reference; when you are not interested in the topic in the first place, you dont say anything or get involved in the first place.

I was talking about the movie(not the true story of William Wallace) to get you the picture of what I was talking about. You have to realize that we don't have too much info about Alexander the Great but he became a legend and I am telling you, all the bells and whistles you are conecting to his character is not necessarilly and actually him.
Alexander put his people to adore him as a divinity, it is obvious that he would have guided his praising and thus legend to tune his strength and handsomeness.
Now, I am saying that those descriptions you have that you said are 2000 years old have a basis on the legend.
But alas, this is normal because this is real life.

Alexander was human and not a demon such as Griffith. This is why I directed your thread like this: how can you compare Griffith's divine super powers with a normal human? You have to subconsciously overestimate Alexander basing on his legend to think of such comparison and this is what I am trying to say from the beginning. Sorry of not have been direct earlier.
 
Im really not overestimating alexander the greats strength in reality, if Griffith was in our reality with the same strength he has he would be obviously damn near untouchable.
Im very aware of the unrealism in berserk compared to normal life, Guts has been damaged enough to kill probably well over 500 men, so far past the next best swordsman in reality that ever existed its not funny, but because of that it doesnt mean for a second a creator of a story who bases their people on real life heros or whatever would have to limit them to the original persons abilitys.

Having said that doesnt change the possibility of the original topic at all, if Miura did base Griffith with some similar traits of Alexander hypothetically it doesnt mean he would have to limit him to great human abilitys in our reality because of that.
 

BigFire

King King King Gainer
Sparnage said:
Alexander the great was known for physical strength, courage, arrogance, extreme intelligence particularly on the battlefield, charismatic, physically handsome and most importantly, unbridled ambition. People would say he was nothing short of brilliant and amazed many even today. At an early age of 21 he was already ready to conquer the world.
He was said to be a brilliant and selfless person even though a bastard, probably one of the most brilliant military leaders in human history and by within 10 years he took over basically all of the known world and had not once lost a battle.

Alexander and his mother is likely to have murdered his father Phillips II to speed up his ascension. He started his war against Persian Empire with the goal of completely anniliating it once and for all. And no, he didn't do this by himself, but rather with an unpresidented army pioneered by his father.

Like i said i could be wrong but so many of those traits and even history sound so much like griffiths in many ways. Even now he is thought of as a prodigy among prodigy's, and im pretty sure thats like Griffith.
If i am mistaken or hard to believe at all then someone tell me otherwise.

However brilliant, he is ALWAYS one defeat away from total anniliation himself. As it is, he managed to win all of the decisive battle. A great deal of his success rest with the army that he inherited from his father, which by the end of his reign, he had managed to executed most of senoir officers (for perceived treason). Yep, towards the end of his short live, he's paranoid as a speed freek without sleep for weeks.
 
Top Bottom