From: Stratford, Connecticut
... What conqueror wouldn't be comparable to the same? I don't get the anti-semitic part, as claiming something similar to say Genghis Khan or Alexander III wouldn't usually be considered "anti-Mongol" or "anti-Macedonian".
I can't see anyone ordering the wholesale slaughter of captured women and children as anything above "bloodthirsty" personally, no matter the reason behind it. I'm appalled that I was taught as a kid in church that these people were somehow valiant, gold-shining heroes as opposed to simply yet another ambitious, vicious conqueror with piles of bodies at their feet just like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and etc.
Not sure how any of that could be seen as "anti semitic", like I said any more than the above about Caesar would be "Anti-Roman".
Edit: If I'm venturing into forbidden "Religion/Politics" territory here let me know, not trying to start a flame war or wreck the thread!
If we haven't crossed over into forbidden territory, we're very close; it's a lot like an unmarked minefield: when you know you're in it, it's usu. too late.
Conqueror? I make a distiction between an Alexander conquering the known world and Saul securing the eastern Med, but Battles BC didn't compare Julius Caesar to Don Corleone; instead they choose to compare him to King David, which struck me as odd.
There was another scene where Moses kills an Egyptian -- a Biblical fact -- but then Moses postures over his victim like the "Incredible Hulk".
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.
"The Angel of Okinawa"
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II