Alexander the not so Great: History through Persian eyes

[Luftwaffe]

Let's just say he never enforced Greek names and religion on the Persians, and in fact started dressing and acting like a persian. Same cannot be said for the Arab invaders. Your name is an Arab name correct?

My name is unknown to everyone apart from my ID which is Luftwaffe = German Air Force

So asked you under what pretext did He invade-conquer the Free Strong Lands and burned down Cities-Nations. Was It Christianity-madness or what.

Muslims did what needed to be done consider it bringing Freedom and Democracy and Innovations-Knowledge to those lands who invited them to Rule to strengthen them [like united states]

 

[Wright]

My name is unknown to everyone apart from my ID which is Luftwaffe = German Air Force

So asked you under what pretext did He invade-conquer the Free Strong Lands and burned down Cities-Nations. Was It Christianity-madness or what.

Muslims did what needed to be done consider it bringing Freedom and Democracy and Innovations-Knowledge to those lands who invited them to Rule to strengthen them [like united states]

There was no christianiaty back then. If you don't know Persia had tried to invade Greece and had captured many Greek towns.
Alexander saw this as his revenge on behalf of the Greeks.

Muslims is not an ethnicity. Be specific in what nation or people you are talking about.

 

[Luftwaffe]

If you don't know Persia had tried to invade Greece and had captured many Greek towns.
Alexander saw this as his revenge on behalf of the Greeks.

you can open muslim invasion thread...

Lets talk alexender invaded and destroyed many nations does it come under the freedom act of greece. So where were his diplomatic strengths if it did not work why did he destroy Persian City[cities] and invaded and conquered many other cities-nations was it too on behalf of someone.

 

[Wright]

you can open muslim invasion thread...

Lets talk alexender invaded and destroyed many nations does it come under the freedom act of greece. So where were his diplomatic strengths if it did not work why did he destroy Persian City[cities] and invaded and conquered many other cities-nations was it too on behalf of someone.

My only advice to you is to look at the context. We are talking 320 BC. Nation's freely invaded one another for land or to settle old grudges. There was no internatonal law and diplomacy was in it's infancy. Invasions almost always ended with cities being burned, even in wars among Greeks.

 

[Luftwaffe]

My only advice to you is to look at the context. We are talking 320 BC. Nation's freely invaded one another for land or to settle old grudges. There was no internatonal law and diplomacy was in it's infancy. Invasions almost always ended with cities being burned, even in wars among Greeks.

So that puts him with the title of "alexender the barbarian" instead of great; what great was it about him by destroying Cities-Nations-killing civilian population. By the logic all invaders-conquers should be The Great, jeez history is really twisted.

 

[Wright]

So that puts him with the title of "alexender the barbarian" instead of great; what great was it about him by destroying Cities-Nations-killing civilian population. By the logic all invaders-conquers should be The Great, jeez history is really twisted.

He was seen as great by western world because he conqured an enemy nation, and because of military genius. Like Arab invaders are seen as great by pakistanis and not indians. Get it?

If we apply your standards of being a carebear, no military leader is great because they all killed people. And no empire is Great.

 

[Wright]

Mass murdering religious bigots who tried to hide their rapine and atrocities under religious cover.

Atleast Alexander was not that. He was frank.

Persian culture was not changed by Alexander, in fact it changed Greek culture as Alexander's army started behaving more and more Persian. The Arab Invaders did more harm to Persia and their culture than the Greeks ever did.

The manifestation is the current Theocracy and the extinction of names like "Darius", "Xerxes". etc.

 

[Bhairava]

Persian culture was not changed by Alexander, in fact it changed Greek culture as Alexander's army started behaving more and more Persian. The Arab Invaders did more harm to Persia and their culture than the Greeks ever did.

The manifestation is the current Theocracy and the extinction of names like "Darius", "Xerxes". etc.

Anyway let's not diss the Persians here. They have their perspective and it is only fair to respect that. TO be fair to them majority Iranians dont hold the Arabs in a good light either. Infact they hate Arabs more than Israel as far as I have observed.

It's only identity crisis stricken people, you know who, who come here with all the weird ideas.

 

[INDIC]

how do you know? did you see them , conquering lands means being uncivilized?

Burning down Universities, Libraries and Temples. Turks did that in North India in 12th century.

 

[tvsram1992]

So now its Alexandarnot so great

 

[trinity]

He did defeat Porus, and to my knowledge Alexander thought he had conquered India. He wanted to go deeper, but his soldiers refused, they were near death, battered, demoralized, and home sick. Alexander saw this and decided to return back to Greece. Few conquerors and kings have done what Alexander did, and as you read more and more about him, you'll come to realize why he's known as Alexander the Great, it's a title he deserves.

No he didn;t think he conquered all of India. Why else would he press to go further? He was actually told of more empires with bigger armies. Porus gave Alexander and his men a small taste of what lied ahead. His men felt if Porus was just a small kingdom imagine what lied ahead. Alexander is lucky he didn;t go further otherwise his reputation would have been far different than today.

 

[INDIC]

No he didn;t think he conquered all of India. Why else would he press to go further? He was actually told of more empires with bigger armies. Porus gave Alexander and his men a small taste of what lied ahead. His men felt if Porus was just a small kingdom imagine what lied ahead. Alexander is lucky he didn;t go further otherwise his reputation would have been far different than today.

He would have to clash Nanda Empire(stretched from Punjab to Bengal) if he moved forward.

 

[Bhairava]

I'm not a big fan of alternate history...but it just doesn't make sense why would Alexander, who was not exactly known for his tender heart, pardon Porus and actually 'gift everything that he won with so much bloodshed' ?


To make matters worse no Indian account of the Battle exists. Something doesn't fit somewhere.

He did defeat Porus, and to my knowledge Alexander thought he had conquered India. He wanted to go deeper, but his soldiers refused, they were near death, battered, demoralized, and home sick.

No he didn;t think he conquered all of India. Why else would he press to go further? He was actually told of more empires with bigger armies. Porus gave Alexander and his men a small taste of what lied ahead. His men felt if Porus was just a small kingdom imagine what lied ahead. Alexander is lucky he didn;t go further otherwise his reputation would have been far different than today.

That's true. Plutarch says Alexander's soldiers lost heart immediately when they were informed that a massive army of more than 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 chariots and the 6000 of their worst nightmare - war elephants was waiting for them on the other side of the Ganges which itself was many more times wider and deeper than Jhelum.

 

[AHMED85]

problem is not what had done in history but problem & great challenge for countries around the world is

Who will making history...

 

[Luftwaffe]

He was seen as great by western world because he conqured an enemy nation, and because of military genius. Like Arab invaders are seen as great by pakistanis and not indians. Get it?

If we apply your standards of being a carebear, no military leader is great because they all killed people. And no empire is Great.

Actually you are mistaken on your part I did not yet dictate or impose my standards, since the Thread is about alexander, so you may stick with alexender instead of obsessive arab invaders [open another thread], so more than half of the world were seen as enemies and according to west [& alexander] seen enemies so invasion and destruction of cities-people were the only option left.

So lets put the ball in your court because you started applying your logic. Actually military leaders are only great in their circle and if they successfully repulse invasion-attacking force, it would be wrong to assume military commanders-leaders are great because they killed people but to put in context great military leaders are those enemies on the battlefield, you mentioned people which I agree alexender killed murdered innocent people across regions.