Tell me again why Alexander of Macedon is so great?
>because he conquered it all in one lifetime!
Looks like he just took Persia, and not even at its height.
"Conquered the known world" my ass.
Impacted European and Asian culture for centuries. Distilled imperialistic ideals. Just the perfect example of a classical leader.
>China = Asia
>zero impact on Europe
>one of if not the most popular characters of medieval literature into the 15th century, influencing people even then
>zero impact on Europe
just like genghiz khan the after effects of his conquest was far more important than his conquests to world history
without alexander there would be no helllenization or hellenistic culture
He did indirectly impact the romans, because when the Romans conquered the East, they were basically inheriting the framework that Alexander and his greek successors had set up over the generations. A lot of Greek-infused eastern cults and religions poured into Rome when this happened. Not to mention the fact that the Greek was the language of the Eastern mediterranean (and eventually influencing Russia, Eastern Europe) for over 1000 years was cause Alexander
>without alexander there would be no helllenization or hellenistic culture
This. Nowadays historians call the epoch his rule started the one of 'hellenism'. It's the foundation on which the roman empire set it's roots and ultimately on which europe was created.
It's not for the conquering that he's great, but the spreading of Hellenistic culture further than any culture had been spread yet in the history of mankind at the time. It completely changed the ancient world.
Because in this timeframe of the world, the army you began your expedition was the army you had to work with for however many years of the campaign.
This is also the era when *one* decisive loss could spell the doom of your empire. Arming your commoners was simply not something you did until the Napoleonic times, so the vast majority of your infantry came from landowners or nobles. You lose them all, and you lose the heirs to the ruling class.
So, knowing very well that the loss of your army would mean the loss of your empire, would *you* have gone to war? Or would you stay in the capital wallowing in decadence?
Now you know why Alexander was considered "great." He was willing to risk it all, and he had strategic know-how to materialize success.
>Europe and china were irrelvenat at 500 B.C mostly being shitty tribes
>All those Greek city states plastered in French/Spanish coast
He was actually a little shit that didn't know how to do anything other than war. He destroyed shit and then he died, leaving a broken empire with warring administrators.
You're right, but what I meant was that Alexander's successors hellenized the ruling elites of Anatolia, Egypt, Syria and Palestine. When Rome came to the East they left this hellenistic culture intact, and that ensured that when the Eastern Empire succeeded the Roman one, Greek culture persisted in an evolve form and would go on to Muscovy, Kiev, Bulgaria and Serbia and even Italy during the Renaissance as the conquest of Constantinople led to a flood of Byzantine scholars and their ancient greek manuscripts to that peninsula
He was a great leader but a terrible tactician. The plan and generals were all made and trained by Philip II, he was prone to rages, alcoholism, and incoherent commands. The battle of the Persian Gates was a veteran Persian commander using the same tactics with a small force to hurl boulders, javelins, arrows, and missiles at mass formations of clogged Macedonian and Greek soldiers for over a fucking month.
No one can say the Persians didn't have their moments.