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.
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.