Alexander the not so Great: History through Persian eyes

[amalakas]

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.

It is evident that you hold a grudge for a historical figure. Tough luck mate, the guy is dead and you can't do anything about it.

Not only that, but he is and will forever be "Alexander the Great" and he is one of the very few men, rulers, conquerors, strategists, leaders, generals, pioneers, that will be remembered forever.

He changed the world leading by example. You have a problem with that, it is a personal issue and not a historical one.

 

[Wright]

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.

Im not going to get into my personal opinions. History considers great those whom have the ability to alter it. Alexander, like Genghis Khan, Napoleon, did have a monumental impact on history.

Same applies to Empies like the Spanish whom basically killed off an entire civilization. Yet Spanish along with English is one of the global languages, and both empires had a gigantic impact on world history.

You can point out things like cruelty. But people tend not to care in the long run because everyone dies. But not everyone changes history. Hence the fascination.

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.

Well there are a thousand "What if's". As far as history is concerned he defeated Porus and went back. If he was defeated by Porus the story would be different.

 

[trinity]

Im not going to get into my personal opinions. History considers great those whom have the ability to alter it. Alexander, like Genghis Khan, Napoleon, did have a monumental impact on history.

Same applies to Empies like the Spanish whom basically killed off an entire civilization. Yet Spanish along with English is one of the global languages, and both empires had a gigantic impact on world history.

You can point out things like cruelty. But people tend not to care in the long run because everyone dies. But not everyone changes history. Hence the fascination.




Well there are a thousand "What if's". As far as history is concerned he defeated Porus and went back. If he was defeated by Porus the story would be different.

But the reality is that after defeating Porus, Alexander did not venture any further into India. Alexander could have, would have, or should have defeated the entire Sub continent is all speculation. History is always dictated by the victors. i am interested in his decision on turning back. Probably, encountered that India is not an easy conquest compared to Persia!

 

[Bhairava]

Well there are a thousand "What if's". As far as history is concerned he defeated Porus and went back. If he was defeated by Porus the story would be different.

He did not go back, because he thought he had reached the end of the world, as was his mission.

He turned back because his soldiers threatened mutiny on hearing the massive army that was waiting in anticipation for them in the Indian subcontinent. Purushottam [Porus] was just a trailer, the main picture was not yet screened.

 

[amalakas]

He went back because he was in poor health already.

 

[livingdead]

Guys talk about history not '300' movie. It was over the top, too stylized and was good fun. Also the 'this is sparta' meme is so popular because it was hilarious and stupid. Has anybody seen 'meet the spartans'

 

[Bhairava]

He went back because he was in poor health already.

Not exactly....he tried convincing his soldiers to get ready for one last fight, apparently he had the charisma to bring them from Macedonia to the banks of Jhelum on his quest to conquer the world, but reality struck the soldiers that what lay in front of them [Indian subcontinent] was nothing but a sure,collective suicide and hence he was forced to turn back.

 

[Wright]

He did not go back, because he thought he had reached the end of the world, as was his mission.

He turned back because his soldiers threatened mutiny on hearing the massive army that was waiting in anticipation for them in the Indian subcontinent. Purushottam [Porus] was just a trailer, the main picture was not yet screened.

Well that would mean he would have to redo another Persian type campaign. And spend another decade in India. It's understandable his soldiers wanted to see their families and go home after a decade of conquest.
But that does not mean he could not have given Indians a run for their money. If he had forgotten about Persia and went straight for India then that could have been something to speculate on.

Anyhow Was India not weaker than Persia for much of history? I mean it was ruled by outsiders for a long time.

Not exactly....he tried convincing his soldiers to get ready for one last fight, apparently he had the charisma to bring them from Macedonia to the banks of Jhelum on his quest to conquer the world, but reality struck the soldiers that what lay in front of them [Indian subcontinent] was nothing but a sure,collective suicide and hence he was forced to turn back.

So it was not really Alexander who was afraid, it was his soldiers who refused to go on.

 

[livingdead]

Well that would mean he would have to redo another Persian type campaign. And spend another decade in India. It's understandable his soldiers wanted to see their families and go home after a decade of conquest.
But that does not mean he could not have given Indians a run for their money. If he had forgotten about Persia and went straight for India then that could have been something to speculate on.

Anyhow Was India not weaker than Persia for much of history? I mean it was ruled by outsiders for a long time.



So it was not really Alexander who was afraid, it was his soldiers who refused to go on.

At that point of time (or before that), India was not ruled by outsiders. His army would have met a bigger opponent(nandas) than porus, which possibly unnerved them.
Subsequent big empires(Mauryan who came after nandas) did defeat greeks. It is difficult to speculate the outcome based on the subsequent decline of big Indian empires.

 

[Wright]

^^^^^

Interesting. However some sources say that Alexander professed that the Afghan horsemen were his fiercest opponents.

 

[amalakas]

At that point of time (or before that), India was not ruled by outsiders. His army would have met a bigger opponent(nandas) than porus, which possibly unnerved them.
Subsequent big empires(Mauryan who came after nandas) did defeat greeks. It is difficult to speculate the outcome based on the subsequent decline of big Indian empires.

^^^^^

Interesting. However some sources say that Alexander professed that the Afghan horsemen were his fiercest opponents.

Macedonian army was made to destroy larger armies. In general Greeks didn't engage into a single major combat having superiority in numbers. Facing a more numerous opponent meant nothing to the Greeks up until WW2. It was not the size that frightened the Greeks. It was Alexander's deteriorating health that made him not as convincing as before.

Also the prospect of marching to the other side of the world was not very compelling to his soldiers who had been fighting for years already.

 

[livingdead]

Macedonian army was made to destroy larger armies. In general Greeks didn't engage into a single major combat having superiority in numbers. Facing a more numerous opponent meant nothing to the Greeks up until WW2. It was not the size that frightened the Greeks. It was Alexander's deteriorating health that made him not as convincing as before.

Also the prospect of marching to the other side of the world was not very compelling to his soldiers who had been fighting for years already.

I never said it frightened alexandar. Like anybody who has defeated all his opponents, he was probably thinking himself as invincible and must be wanting more. But his army mutinied which is why he had to turn back.
Now we all can speculate why the army mutinied, but cannot speculate the outcome if the war indeed happened. Nobody would have thought nepoleons end the way it happened.

Also, I would give most of the success to alexander and not greek army.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

It is evident that you hold a grudge for a historical figure. Tough luck mate, the guy is dead and you can't do anything about it.

Not only that, but he is and will forever be "Alexander the Great" and he is one of the very few men, rulers, conquerors, strategists, leaders, generals, pioneers, that will be remembered forever.

He changed the world leading by example. You have a problem with that, it is a personal issue and not a historical one.

what did he achieve that someone before him did not lol? Cyrus the great was the only great king of that time, he was the first king who gained the title the "the great" alexander was rapist and destroyer of cities that is all.
the **** of Cyrus was worth more than this pathetic thing who you call "the great".
he is only remembered because hollywood and west make a film or documentary about him every day.
people like Cyrus the great are truly remembered, he is someone who is refereed to as father even today.

 

[Shahin Vatani]

what did he achieve that someone before him did not lol? Cyrus the great was the only great king of that time, he was the first king who gained the title the "the great" alexander was rapist and destroyer of cities that is all.
the **** of Cyrus was worth more than this pathetic thing who you call "the great".
he is only remembered because hollywood and west make a film or documentary about him every day.
people like Cyrus the great are truly remembered, he is someone who is refereed to as father even today.

Not just today, for next million years. As long as there are Iranians walking this Earth, he will be our father.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

Not just today, for next million years. As long as there are Iranians walking this Earth, he will be our father.

He was a truly amazing man, just imagine. he created the first superpower on earth, no one before created anything even close to him, but yet he remained a just and kind leader. he allowed people to have their own religion, he even freed jews from babylon.
he even created first chapter of humans right. and now we have some kids saying this rapist called alexander was "great" lol
this is how pathetic these westerns are. so many of them steal eastern culture and achievements, like how they steal Indian,Chinese and Persian maths achievements and say they created it.