Whew lad, this is a surprise. I always cringe when the average idiot says "Woooooow hurr hao did doze 300 brave spartanz win against millionz of persians?" which is pretty much OP, but /his/ knows better...
>>76258 Pretty sure there was like a 1000 other Thebans who the Spartans forced to stay with them because the Thebans had yet to prove themselves true warriors. I counted the Thespians underneath the other Greeks. There was more Thespians than Thebans. The Thespians stayed on their own accord.
>>76895 >According to historian Arrian, Ariobarzanes had a force of 4000 infantry and 700 cavalry who faced a Macedonian force of over 10,000. Encyclopædia Iranica suggests a number of defenders of just 700 (or 2000 elsewhere) men oh u iran
>>76874 Pull that out your ass? Persians regularly fielded armies >100000
>>76895 I doubt the numbers, but >"[The Persians]...Fought a memorable fight... Unarmed as they were, they seized the armed men in their embrace, and dragging them down to the ground... Stabbed most of them with their own weapons."
>>77075 If you think the entire Persian military would logistically be concentrated against the Greeks, you are insane. They had to maintain troops at bases and garrisons or muster points across the empire in various provinces to maintain civil order and stability.
Did Xerxes take a massive invasion force with him to invade Greece? Yes. Did he send his entire fucking army and all of his men against the entirety of the rearguard lead by Leonidas at Thermopylae?
No. Did he have to garrison soldiers in various points in Macedonia, Greece, and Antolia? Yes he did. Modern estimates even say "between 70,000 to 300,000" men for the entire expeditionary military force. But that doesn't mean the Greeks fought 300,000 men and the majority were pulled out when Xerxes left, including the garrison forces in aforementioned Thrace and Macedonia.
The Persian army defeated at Marathon was also implied now to possibly be outnumbered by the combined Greek forces.
>>77075 The accepted number seems to be between 700 and 2000. As another anon pointed out, the Persian Gate was a battle site in a very small and tightly bunched ravine and gully leading to plains where Persepolis is situated behind it several miles eastwards.
There is no way Persian calvary played any major role in the month long delaying action by the Persians and most accounts say they hurled missiles, rocks, and arrows at the Macedonian and Greek soldiers, inflicting huge causalities.
Remember, this is after all three major battles that Darius III and Alexander fought and Persian forces were broken and low on manpower. Ariobarzanes was literally scrapping together scattered remnants of the regular army and the Companions for that final stand.
>>77745 >>77821 >>77929 >>77998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barbalissos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae_%28296%29 Iranians have plenty of wins against Romans and Byzantines but finding specific ones where they were massively outnumbered like at Edessa, Samara or Carrahe are harder.
>>77929 Hey you have to understand the context, he was desperate to show up Caesar with his own edgy military victories. Caesar was just as rash in Gaul, he happened to be fighting a less organized enemy.
>>78075 You don't know the start of it http://iranpoliticsclub.net/history/300/index.htm >This reminds me of American Ku Klux Klan, Neo Nazis and Aryan Brotherhood who claim they are White Aryans! These illiterate morons do not have a shred of racial and anthropological knowledge! American White Supremacists are of the White "Anglo-Saxon" race and by no means they are Aryan! On the other hand mostly Northern Iranians are of the White "Aryan" Race. So these bozos call themselves Aryans, which are not, yet they call us Rag Heads whom we are the true white Aryans! These idiots still assume that we are Arabs! Typical Redneck illiterate Americans! What do you expect?
>>78132 It doesn't help that we have plenty of greek and roman written documents, but very few persian ones and they mostly don't care about numbers or actual details as they care about making it fabulous and epic.
If I recall correctly from this history course few semesters ago.
1] the Spartans were very well disciplined and trained for war starting at a very young age. 2] I believe they used intel that the other army was coming and they knew to hold them off at this cliff passageway or some shit. Basically using a chokepoint man for man they outperformed the enemy.
I loved hearing about the phalanxes and how farmers were the soldiers and they had to wait for summer.
The US did everything in its power to sabotage them as its staff left the country, but they managed to get them working anyway, and used them for everything from bombing to acting as makeshift AWACS platforms.
The Iraqi air force became so scared of them that just painting them with an F-14's radar would make them dump their bombloads and run away.
Course, you can argue that this is just superior equipment, but that never stops us from jerking off about europeans gunning down loads of natives. And in any case, operating those complex and expensive jets while the US does everything it can to sabotage you is no small feat.
>>78220 >In rekting the romans Shapur I who defeated three (3) roman emperors
>In rekting the romans even more but then failing like a bitch Koshraw II or Parviz, who occupied most of the eastern roman empire but was ultimately defeated by Heraclius and assasinated by his own son in a coup d'etat
>Overall best Koshraw I or Anushirvan who apart from being the rival of Justinian and rekting romans (though not on the level of the other two) also conquered Yemen and kinda reformed all the empire with better administration, laws etc. Your classic lawgiver king. Still remembered in iranian tradition as a pretty good and just ruler.
Imo it's the 3rd one but the 3 emperors thing of Shapur makes him pretty flashy
>>78262 >>78442 Persian training: >The training of the Iranian nobility was arduous. As a youth, the Iranian was schooled-in companies of fifty-in running, swimming, horse grooming, tilling the land, tending the cattle, making various handicrafts, and getting accustomed to standing at watch; he would be trained in the arts of the chase (both afoot and on horseback), archery, throwing the spear and javelin, and of sustaining forced marches in unfriendly climate. >At twenty he started his military profession which lasted till the age of fifty as a foot soldier or a rider. The elitist groups were trained for both tasks. >Thus, Darius says proudly: "Trained am I both with hands and with feet. As a horseman I am a good horseman. As a bowman I am a good bowman both afoot and on horseback. As a spearman I am a good spearman both afoot and on horseback".
The Persians capitalized on cavalry and quick offensive tactics, as most of near-by Mesopotamian and Anatolian civilizations they conquered were mostly and geographically flat, making the use and specialty of cavalry very important with how one would take over clay. And they didn't really care about regular infantry (which most of which in the campaign were likely foreign troops send as tribute by their subjugated nations), as their purpose was traditionally to serve as support to their cavalry in their previous campaigns.
Greece, however, is mostly mountainous -- especially Southern Greece (Boeotia, Attica, Peloponnese) where most of the relevant historic Hellenic shit occurred and also where most of the battles were fought in the war -- that isn't friendly to the necessities needed for a nation / region to develop a socially emphasized horse culture, and therefor, the numbers and expertise for a nation's military to develop cavalry (except the Thessalonians and Macedonians -- both of which sided with the Persians once they knocked on their door-step). So instead, most city states focused their military-might on heavy-infantry and / or naval power.
Once the Persians got to Boeotia, the terrain restricted their cavalry use, making them mostly rely on their ground-troops (which were lightly armored and more geared to mobile offensive tactics) that put them in a shit-odds in facing up against a rival infantry force that were renown for being heavily armored and emphasized always sticking together in tight-formation -- who were also on the defense and specifically picked a tightly enclosed spot that they knew gave them an advantage before the Persian arrival.
>>78373 >>78435 >>78486 Shapur I defeated 3 Roman Emperors and inflicted some of the most painful military defeats and embarrassments to the Roman Empire in its entire existence.
Shapur II reigned for over 70 years, was basically a baby in his mother's womb during his coronation, and presided over the first golden age of the Sassanid Empire.
Also criminally underrated is Kadevh I, Khosrau Parviz's father and Khosrau II Parviz's great-great grandfather. Not only was this guy a fantastically prestigious military commander and general, he reigned twice, for fuck long times, and blew the fuck out of the White Huns hard while fighting and later settling peace agreements with the Byzantines while being Justin (or was it Justinan's?) rival.
>>78511 Because Alexander is Macedonian and both he and his dad focused heavily as much on cavalrymen as they did refining the Hoplite with the sarissas.
Also as pointed out, Alexander never actually fully rivaled the Achaemenid Empire at its peak and greatest extent when he defeated it and he had his own set backs of humiliation like at the Battle of the Persian Gate. And the same Greek/Macedonian/Hellenstic focus on Hoplitse would get BTFO by Iranian cataphracts, archers, and Roman legionaries about century later.
>>78540 Kavadh was both Justin and Justinian's counterpart, though I would not say rival. Relations with the romans were not that bad while Kavadh ruled, as Procopius says, and Khosraw I was about to be adopted by Justin (it didn't happen though. Khavad was also philo-mazdakite, if not mazdakite himself.
PD: Only Khoshrau II is Parviz though I suppose you know this and it's a typo
>>78511 Probably because he was the greatest military mind in recorded history, leading an army capable of complex tactical evolutions while wielding sarissas, which is a feat never accomplished before or since. Later phalanges could field a formation which, like its predecessor, was both invincible and irresistable from the front, but lacked the discipline to perform fluid maneuvers with such a seemingly inflexible formation, a feat which no one but Phillip II accomplished. This was, in turn, supported by heavily armored cavalry centuries before heavily armored cavalry became a thing.
Macedon fielded an army of unprecedented strength commanded by a leader of unprecedented brilliance. Don't sell it short by scoffing at their opponents.
Ardashir - Founder Shapur I - first successor and beating three Roman Emperors Shapur II - longest reign + golden age Kadevh I - reigned twice, removed Huns Khosrau I - one of the last great Emperors; last golden age of Persia plus major administrative and economic reforms Khosrau II - great military commander, almost rebuilt the Persian Empire to its glory like in the Achaemenid days but lost in the end
>>78655 Good mention too for Bahram Chobin (technically not Sassanian as he was not from the family). He was a general during Hormizd IV (son of the first khoshrau, father of the second) and basically saved Iran from the Turks and removed them like a champ.
But then Hormizd wanted to remove him from his position so Bahram revolted and became king. Khoshrau II also revolted at the same time but Bahram was stronger and Khoshrau had to flee to Constantinople to seek help.
>>78776 >Persian gates were still a total and decesive victory for Alexander. After losing several thousand men to a few hundred to less then two thousand near dead guys throwing rocks, it was a humiliation, regardless of victory.
And Ariobarznes gets immortalized in Persian culture to this day thanks to said last stand.
>>78834 I'd like hear why he's the greatest first.
>>78817 >m8 there is Alexander and then there is everybody else. Caesar himself wept at the sight of Alexander's statue. Hannibal didn't think he was as good as Alexander either, IIRC. Though he considered himself #2. (With good reason seeing how he walked all over superior Roman armies over and over for his entire career)
>>78810 Yeah he's up there, but I think Kavadh is top tier, if nothing for the fact he gets rid of a corrupt prime minister/vizier, settled a peace with both Justin and Justinian and dabbled in proton-communism for awhile.
It's not groundless at all you daft cunt. Alexander rebuilt his army from the ground up multiple times, creating new divisions and deploying his forces in different formations. Macedonians, Greek mercenaries, Persian cavalry, Indian skirmishers, and more were all incorporated into his army. Anything he saw used effectively in battle he would have adapted in superior form by the next fight. If anyone had a shot at winning with lopsided odds it was Alexander.
If Thermopylae taught you anything it should be the significance of a strong position. Keep in mind that Alexander never fought a single defensive battle in his entire campaign. He almost always had the worse position relative to the opposition. And he always found a way to win. There was no need for moral victories or heroic defeats.
>>79017 Late on the second day of battle, however, as the Persian king was pondering what to do next, he received a windfall; a Trachinian named Ephialtes informed him of the mountain path around Thermopylae and offered to guide the Persian army. Ephialtes was motivated by the desire of a reward. For this act, the name of Ephialtes received a lasting stigma, his name coming to mean "nightmare" in the Greek language and becoming the archetypal traitor in Greek culture.
>>79100 >in a few weeks >inflicted embarrassing losses where entire platoons were lost in the first fight in the first day for over a month while massively out numbered Nice attempt at revisionism though.
There is no conceivable way the Imperium Romanum gets off the ground with a united Macedonian empire still existing circa 250 BC, which would have been the case if Alexander had lived long enough to conquer the Arabian peninsula and raise a blood heir. Hell it might not have happened if either of his sons had survived into adulthood. So basically you have Cassander to thank for Rome and the rise of Christianity.
>>79064 Azeris are turkic on my book as long as they speak turkic m8, you can be turkic and 100% iranian, no problem. Ismail while not being the most turkic man genetically (one just has to look at the portraits made by the painters) wrote his poetry in turk. In general early Safavids also relied hard on turkem specially for the military (though Abbas changed this).
>>79166 No, the Safavids were ethnically Iranian from day one. The earliest attested to and verified ancestor was a Persian ambassador and low level sufist master to the Turks.
>>79178 Azeris are ethnically Iranian, you stupid mother fucker. Their language got turned Turkish, mother fucker. There is reason why Azeris are referred to as "donkeys" in Iran to this day for turning their back on their Iranian kin.
The Safavid dynasty was Azeri and Kurdish, ethnically Iranian. Not Turkic, Turkish.
>>79263 The Sassanid dynasty had descendents living up to the 15th century. There were plenty of short lived Persian and native Iranian dynasties before the Turks came and until the Safavids showed up.
>>79271 It's a garbage state filled with racists, morons and shitpackers. There is no liberalism (in the classic sense, not political one), there is no free speech and free thought, no rights or equality, nothing.
That region cannot sustain or handle democracy because it has never had it. I wasn't raised this way, so, for me I think the government and its agents are cunts... and most of the people too as they're uneducated, underfed, close-minded and generally sickly. It sucks.
The origin of the Safavids thing may be complicated from a western perspective (an uninformed westener expects the leader of a turkmen group to be a turkmen). But it's actually kinda simple and basically what the iranian said. Dunno where he saw that kurdish thing though. First time I hear it.
>>77645 If those numbers are true, I actually super want to know how he did it. I'm not that historically gifted, but did he pull a Genghis with cavalry and Mongol-esque trickery, or was it some Macedonian bullshit-war-magic?
>>79352 >It's a garbage state filled with racists, morons and shitpackers. There is no liberalism (in the classic sense, not political one), there is no free speech and free thought, no rights or equality, nothing. >That region cannot sustain or handle democracy because it has never had it. I wasn't raised this way, so, for me I think the government and its agents are cunts... and most of the people too as they're uneducated, underfed, close-minded and generally sickly. It sucks.
Generalizations are never true. Some of the brightest thinkers have ever come out of Iran (Hafez, Rumi, Ferdowsi, al-Khwarizmi, et al.). Even today, Iranians form a disproportionate amount of scientists, engineers, etc.
As for the repressed nature of civil liberties, it is due to people with your mindset that it is still like this. Instead of giving up on your people, help make the situation better; for example, you can teach there, or you could start a grass roots movement. Complaining about a problem and renouncing affiliation with it doesn't suddenly make it go away, it requires effort. If more people like Mossadegh lived in Iran, it would be a drastically different place today.
>>79352 >One argument is that Alexander was literally a genocidal maniac and has been whitewashed by the annals of history
This is completely backwards. If anything he has been blackwashed by the slanderers in Athens and elsewhere. Cassander's effect on history still influences badly informed novices like you. Alexander was probably the most humane world-conqueror in history. He would have considered modern military engagements a compendium of atrocities. The cowardice of contemporary 'commanders' and soldiers would have disgusted him.
>>79516 Sources conflict greatly on the burning of Persepolis.
Some say Alexander burned it for revenge, or a woman convinced him to do it when he was drunk. Some say that it was his soldiers, frothing at the chance to get payback for Athens, as well as some gold for themselves, and he tried to put out the fires along with his men.
I personally think it would be somewhat out of character, as Alexander had a great deal of respect for the Achaemenids, visiting Cyrus' tomb (he was a fan of Cyropaedia), adopting Persian customs and dress, etc.
Plus, it doesn't help that the sources are all Greek, either.
>>79516 He was a genocidal lunatic. More comparable to Hitler and Chenggis than most wanna give on.
>>79511 >Generalizations are never true. Some of the brightest thinkers have ever come out of Iran (Hafez, Rumi, Ferdowsi, al-Khwarizmi, et al.). Even today, Iranians form a disproportionate amount of scientists, engineers, etc.
I know, we're good, industrious people. That's why this regression pisses me off. Also pisses me off that the muslims and arabs take credit for the "islamic golden age" - something that never really happened in an organized way and was by and large pushed for by Iranians and some Turkics.
And I'm not a Shah supporter whatsoever but Mossadegh wasn't a "great" guy exactly. My gramps explained the background to his moves and it was shady. There are no good guys in Iran's recent past, just layers of dickheads.
>>79560 I say this will all respect to Iranians in Iran... as long they understand basic human rights (for afghans in Iran, for gays, bahaii, apostates, the poor, women, etc.) and the basic tenets of liberalism I'm totally cool with them. But the people you and I meet and circlejerk about are the top x%, the educated, the open-minded. In the backwater deserts of Iran there are shit people too, with servants and this and that. Sucks.
desu both of you are taking this almost into personal grounds. It's pretty dumb, both the fanboys and the contrarians. The same happens with others like Napoleon and /his/ is gonna become literal cancer if people cannot talk about dead people without keeping a cool head.
We will never know the truth of it. A popular misunderstanding is that Alexander showed up, looted everything, and then burned it down. That is false. He spent an entire winter in Persepolis. He burned it down on the way out and great regretted his actions later, especially upon returning there after the march back from India.
One thing that may have influenced his decision was the fate of a large number of Greek slave craftsman, who were able to flee Persepolis just before Alexander arrived.
Meeting Alexander on the road, they were a dreadful sight. Many of them had been mutliated by their Persian masters to prevent them from escaping: these would have one or both feet missing. Others had had their eyes cut out, their fingers taken off, and so on. After having had his wounded forces cut up in their tents by the Persians who had come up from behind him, Alexander's feelings can be imagined. In the moments before he set fire to Persipolis, he may have remembered his dead comrades and the mangled troop of Greek slaves.
He settled the latter as best he could in one of his new cities.
>>79630 All that can be explained by realpolitik, Alexander was an intelligent and flexible man. He did the same in egypt and virtually everywhere. He was completely capable of plundering Persepolis for vengeance and for better morale of his soldiers, while keeping the "achaemenid heir" mask.
Even if we decide he had perfect good intentions and he didn't have anything against persians, his troops did. It was necessary to destroy Persepolis and, if he did it by accident, that's what would be out of character since he was too intelligent for that and before everything else he was a greek leading the greeks in a vengeance war against persians.
This is plain nonsense. Alexander abhorred senseless slaughter. Almost all the massacres perpetrated by his army were a direct result of him being injured or incapacitated and unable to check the vengeance-taking of his forces.
>>78540 Khosrau II is single-handedly responsible for 9/11. If he hadn't embarked on a completely pointless mini-world War with the Byzantines the Arabs wouldn't have been able to wipe out both of them shortly afterwards. 9/11 literally happened because that guy was bored one day.
>>81004 Not being a drunken ragging faggot also helps.
>And I wouldn't call him a world conueror either. 45% of the world's population was under Persian rule. He also established the first TRUE global empire that spanned three continents.
Yes I can call him that and unlike Alexander, Cyrus had a humble personality and believed the Empire did not need to extend its boarders nor did he want to build multiple capitals. There's a reason why the Cyropedia was famous among enlightened readers and people like TJ are Cyrus fans while the Greeks talk about him being the greatest model of an autocratic and monarchistic ruler for centuries.
>He wanted to exceed the accomplishments of Cyrus. Thankfully, he failed at that.
Alexander had a singular vision and he realized it. If he'd lived another twenty or thirty years it would be apparent what a brilliant statesman and monarch he was. He was not only a world conqueror but a world uniting force. He engaged in a policy of racial fusion which was unique in history. His personal accomplishments as a general and solder far outstrip those of Cyrus, which were immense. Cyrus was his model monarch as well, there's no debating that. But there's a reason people in every land throughout history have heard of Alexander. His deeds were legendary, but his vision was greater still. At the time of his death, he was sent to launch a campaign to conquer the Arabian peninsula, after which he would undertake to circumnavigate Africa.
Alexander's empire also spanned three continents, so I'm not sure what you're on about there.
>>79218 Please tell me what happened when Pyrrus of Epirus invaded Italy? Pyrrus was a god-tier general Hannibal and Scipio both put him up there with Alexander when asked yet he got his shit fucked up so bad we still use the word "Pyhrric victory" today. Phalanxes cannot contend with trained swordsmen, Alexander steamrollered the Persians because their infantry were spear levy-tier. Greeks never once beat the Romans in a war and they fough many between 280 BC and 168 BC
>>80103 Money had a totally different value back then anyway. Although it sounds interesting it's a pointless fact anyway. Besides, can anyone elaborate on how Alexander gave "free money" for the people in conquered areas? To keep the economy and spending going
>>81260 >If he had >If Stop with this. >His personal accomplishments as a general and solder far outstrip those of Cyrus, which were immense. No he doesn't. Cyrus lead the Persian Revolt against his grandfather, while Media was one of the greatest Imperial powers in the Near East right after his own father had died; Alexander had his army and the main plans for the invasion of the Achaemenid Empire handed to him on a platter by men all personally trained and vetted by his own father.
Cyrus defeated the Median Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Lydian Empire despite consistently being out-numbered, while with less resources, and won thanks to his wits and skill as a general and strategist.
Alexander has nothing on that.
>But there's a reason people in every land throughout history have heard of Alexander. Cyropedia is one of the most well documented records and historical accounts of any ruler in history. Cyrus is known in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Koran. He is also seen as a liberator by the Jews just as the Cyrus Cylinder forms the backdrop of the Charter of Human Rights at the UN Headquarters in New York City.
As for personal legacy:
The Babylonians respected Cyrus, the Lydians loved him, the Greeks still even in the days of Alexander venerated Cyrus as the greatest example of a ruler and leader, and your precious Alexander worshiped him.
Cyrus is one of the most influential men in history. And on top of that, he's one of the most humble and humane men to have ever founded or ruled an empire.
>Alexander's empire also spanned three continents Yes but his conquest of Persia and the total size of the Macedonian Empire is smaller the the Achaemenid Empire.He failed to get anywhere near the Caucaus region like Cyrus did, he did not annex as much territory or recover the boundaries of Achaemeneid conquests in India and Hindu Kush, and the Macedonian presence in Egypt did not penetrate outside the Kingdom, unlike the Persians.
He continued to use Macedonian tactics from Alexander's day 60 years later. Alexander make significant innovations on his father's tactics in less than 6 years. Pyrrhus, like Perdiccas before him, misused his elephants, and they became a liability.
Nonsense. It was the army that refused to go on, because they had lost enthusiasm in the monsoons after a long and largely unrewarding Indian campaign. Alexander wanted to press on, and very nearly did without the Macedonians.
>>81440 >He lost one battle after his superiors pulled the plug on him Hannibal was let down by Carthaginian administration, they didn't have the heart for a protracted war and the Romans were relishing it. So when Carthage said "fuck it, get out of there and come back to Africa" the Romans stormed in straight after and didn't give him a chance to prepare.
In about the third week of March 633 (beginning of Muharram, 12 Hijri) Thus Khalid entered Iraq with 18,000 warriors, the largest Muslim army yet assembled for battle.
, Khalid set out from Yamamah. But before doing so he wrote to Hormuz, the Persian governor of the frontier district of Dast Meisan:
Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the Jizya, and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring a people who desire death as ardently as you desire life.
>persian le no
>khalid(ra) beat ur leaders in personal combat, gahmeria
> second Persian army had been cut to pieces by this new and unexpected force emerging out of the barren wastes of Arabia. Each of the two Persian army commanders had been an illustrious imperial figure, a 100,000 dirham-man. And not only these two, but two other first-rate generals had been slain by the enemy. It was unbelievable! Considering that this new enemy had never been known for any advanced military organisation, these two defeats seemed like nightmares-frightening but unreal.
>He addressed the men. He started by praising Allah and calling His blessings upon the Holy Prophet. Then he continued:
"Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours."
>Never before in its long history had the empire suffered such military defeats, in such rapid succession, at the hands of a force so much smaller than its, own armies, so close to its seat of power and glory.
There is no evidence to suggest the Phillip had ever intended to conquer the Persian empire, and certainly he never dreamed of marching as far east as India. The original goal of his campaign was to retake and liberate the Greek states which had fallen under Persian dominion. It was Alexander who envisioned something greater. Nothing was handed to him on a platter. He raised his own troops to augment the forces left by his father, and still had to borrow 800 talents in order to set out. On top of that he had to put down the domestic revolt that ensued as soon as Phillip was killed.
Alexander marched over the Hindu Kush. He took Tyre, the Aoronos, the Sogdian Rock and many other fortified places, which makes him the greatest siege master in history. All those Empires you mentioned were naturally assimilated into the Persian Empire which he conquered as a whole. Alexander almost never enjoyed numerical superiority.
Alexander is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Daniel. Michelangelo depicts him in the fresco of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. He also figures heavily in the Koran as Dhul-Qarnayn, the Two-Horned One, a great conqueror who built a massive wall to contain the nations of Gog and Magog. Alexander was also a Jewish folk hero, and his image is the only one of a non-Jewish figure to be discovered in ancient synagogue (see image).
The Persians were largely despised in Egypt, but that was not Cyrus' fault. Alexander on the other hand was revered as a god there, his body being interred for centuries after death. One of the later Ptolemys melted down his gold sarcophagus to print emergency coinage and was later executed by an outraged mob.
Cyrus benefited from a long and prosperous rule. Alexander dropped dead almost immediately after returning from India. It's not really a fair comparison, because Alexander never had the chance to preside over his massive empire. He was a roving monarch who governed from his war-tent.
>>78924 >Parties of desperate Persians and Arabs were isolated from one another, surrounded, overpowered, disarmed and driven back to the battlefield like flocks of sheep. As each group was brought back, it was herded to the river, and every man was beheaded in the river bed or on the bank whence his blood ran into the river.
> The pursuit by the Muslim cavalry, the capture and return of the Persian and Arab warriors, and their killing in the river went on for the rest of that day and the whole of that night and the whole of the next day and part of the next. 1 Every vanquished warrior who fell into the victors' hands was decapitated. Khalid was keeping his pledge! Not till sometime on the third day was the last man killed.
> Qaqa turned to Khalid and said, "If you kill all the people of the earth their blood will not flow as long as this river is dammed. The earth will not absorb all the blood. Let the water run in the river. Thus you shall keep your pledge." Others added, "We have heard that when the earth absorbs some of the blood of the sons of Adam, it refuses to accept more."
>As the Persian army fled from the battlefield, Khalid launched his cavalry after it. "Do not kill them" , he ordered the cavalry. "Bring them back alive." 3 The bed of the river was soaked with blood ... but the river was not "running with blood" as Khalid had pledged!
>These writers tell us that the river actually ran with blood; that there was a mill downstream of the battlefield powered by the water of this river; that so much blood flowed in the river that for three days the mill was grinding not with water but with blood! Tabari, coming to the end of his account of this battle, mentions the mill, "... as related by Shuaib, who heard it from Mugheerah." there was a mill down-stream, powered by the water of this river; this mill was used for grinding corn for the army of Khalid for three days; and the water was red. stay mad perisan
>>81986 >There is no evidence to suggest the Phillip had ever intended to conquer the Persian empire Why are you lying? >The original goal of his campaign was to retake and liberate the Greek states which had fallen under Persian dominion. Why are you lying? >Nothing was handed to him on a platter. Why are you lying? >Alexander marched over the Hindu Kush. So did the Persians. >He took Tyre, the Aoronos, the Sogdian Rock and many other fortified places So did the Persians under Cyrus. >which makes him the greatest siege master in history No it doesn't. >All those Empirse you mentioned were naturally assimilated into the Persian Empire All those Empires I mention were at their peak against a newly emerged Persia and unified against them. Defeated multiple regional powers that held sway over almost entirety of civilizations > defeating one power. >Alexander almost never enjoyed numerical superiority. He enjoyed it several times. >Alexander is mentioned in the Bible Not as often or as important as Cyrus and in fact Alexander is never directly named unlike Cyrus, who is mentioned 23 times. >he also figures heavily in the Koran as Dhul-Quarnayn, the Two-Horned One, a great conqueror who buiilt a massive wall to contain the nations of Gog and Magog. That's Cyrus again. >Alexander was also a Jewish folk hero. No he wasn't. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1120-alexander-the-great >and his image is the only one of a non-Jewish figure to be discovered in ancient synagogue Cyrus rebuilt the Solomon Temple and returned the Jews or rather allowed them to return to Judea. And he is the only attested historical figure to be referred to and titled as the anointed one.
>Alexander on the other hand was revered as a god there That's because Macedonians like their decadent Greek kin believe in defification on a literal level which rings with Egyptian beliefs that their Pharaohs are gods, which the Persians never believed in. You are full of shit on so much.
>>81931 I like how you miss out the part where Persia was already completely destroyed from a cataclysmic war with the Byzantines five years earlier. I'd like to see the Arabs try forcing the Palaestinian Roman limes in 300 AD
>>81986 >Cyrus benefited from a long and prosperous rule. Cyrus was entirely at war and never once had peace when ascending as the King of Kings, constantly fighting the Medians, Lydians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and raiders from Central Asia and other Iranic tribes from the start to end of his reign.
He was always on the front lines yet was a better administrator, humane ruler, leader of men, and dignified figure in human history then Alexander ever will be or ever would be. The Empire Cyrus had founded was already larger then what Alexander would make centuries larger.
>He was always on the front lines yet was a better administrator, humane ruler, leader of men, and dignified figure in human history then Alexander ever will be or ever would be.
According to what metrics, you preposterous shill? Cyrus was honored and respected by his people, surely, but Alexander was revered like a god by his. He had an entire fictional Romance to his credit in addition to his actual accomplishments because of the desire to idolize him.
You're spewing personal opinions while I'm delivering nothing but facts. This isn't an argument. I'm the only one making relevant points.
Modern Islamic revisionist scholarship naturally prefers to identity the Two Horned One as a Persian conquer rather than a Greek one. Two-Horned one is itself a reference to the Ram's horns which identitfy Alexander with the god Amun:
>It is well known that already in his own time Alexander was portrayed with horns according to the iconography of the Egyptian god Ammon.
Since the Renaissance it has been clear to scholars that Alexander was an idol-worshiper, and therefore an attempt has been made in Islamic circles made to trade the pagan conqueror for a more religiously acceptable one.
>>81965 fun fact you got conquered and ur ruling class to this day are sayyids, and you worrship Ali(ra) and hussien(ra) as gods you build masjids for them and make dua to them and cut ur self for them and even better the last five of ur imams san the last one of course, took somaili wives, hhaha the shahaba may have overblown the numbers but u guys lost so bad u turned into vid + non-even arab here proud metis nation
>>82598 >You're spewing personal opinions. No, I am not >While I'm delivering nothing but facts. Lies. >shill Ironic ad hominem is noted.
 Other then the fact even the fucking wikipedia article directly correlates passages attested to to Cyrus with those in the Koran to him suddenly now magically fall to Alexander? You just want to poison the well now because most historical and modern Islamic scholars have correctly deduced it is a reference and blatant one to Cyrus and never was about Alexander.
Keep shoveling your bullshit all you want, its not going to fly.
>>82598 >no rebuttal to being called out on your bullshit about Alexander in the Bible >no rebuttal to Cyrus' accomplishments >constantly blubbering and bullshiting with faux claims and bringing up what ifs > In Arabic translations of the Old Testament, the word "Dhul-Qarnayn" (Hebrew: Ba`al Haqqərānayim בעל הקרנים) appears once in the Old Testament, in the Book of Daniel 8:20: >أَمَّا الْكَبْشُ الَّذِي رَأَيْتَهُ ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ فَهُوَ مُلُوكُ مَادِي وَفَارِسَ Translation: The ram that you saw, the one with the two horns, represents the kings of Media and Persia. Keep lying buddy.
>>82598 >According to what metrics, you preposterous shill? Who are you calling a shill, you mongoloid? >Cyrus was honored and respected by his people Cyrus is literally titled as The Father and his only equivalent in terms of reverence and sheer idolism is Moses to the Israelites. Cyrus is the Father to the Iranians and especially more so the Persians to this very day. >Alexander was revered like a god by his This means nothing also in terms of any tangible relevance. Also Caesar is more relevant in Western culture then Alexander, retard as is Augustus for that matter. >He had an entire fictional Romance to his credit So this is your counter to Cyrus being representation of what it means to be the pinnacle of a ruler and king in human society? Not impressed >You're spewing personal opinions I stated fact. The Two-Horned man has three more likely candidates being representative of actual historical figures in history to stop Gog and Mog:
- Cyrus the Great - Darius the Great - A Lakhmid prince
The parallels of Cyrus's expansion of the Persian Achaemenid Empire are perfectly corroborated and match the narrative claims of the Two-Horned Man's expansion unlike Alexander's southern and eastern routes. Then Darius who actually is well known for building many fortresses and castles against bands of Scythians.
On top of all that, Cyrus's actual historical character that has been attested to in direct and third party sources have had him as near faultless, humble, and nigh on perfect where as Alexander is marred by rages, alcohol, and black wrath.
Then finally, the Two-Horned is allegorically stated to have had a length rule and duration in safeguarding the world; which again correlates with Cyrus, which does not with Alexander.
They don't magically fall to Alexander, they have belonged to him since antiquity. Try to apply yourself and exercise a little reading comprehension. Alexander was recast in Arabian folklore as an Islamic conqueror who spread the world of Allah before Muhammad himself. This was of course fabrication, and it came to light with the scholarly revelations of the Renaissance. Since then the literature has changed, not because of any new facts, but because Alexander is not quite as acceptable as a Muslim hero anymore.
Alexander appears in the bible as I stated, and it is only natural that there would be more references to Cyrus than him because Cyrus had far more dealings with the Jews than Alexander. There is some wonderful literature about how Alexander was first hated by the ancient Jews, both for his paganism and his imperial rule, but over time they came to respect him on account of his unparalleled success despite being a heathen.
I never attempted to downplay any of Cyrus' accomplishments you insufferable buffoon. I simply believe Alexander's were more impressive. How can I possibly revere Alexander on one hand and slander Cyrus on the other? That would be ridiculous. Go back, read my posts, and find one negative remark I've made about Cyrus.
Amun was an Egyptian god. In point of fact he was a local deity who was elevated to a status similar to that held by Zeus in Greek theology, which is why he came to be be identified as Zeus-Amun. In the 29th dynasty and the 31st dynasty, the Persian great King also held the title of Egyptian Pharaoh. Alexander inherited this title just before defeating Darius for the last time.
He was then known as Setepenre Meryamun Alexander III (Chosen of Ra, Beloved of Amun); and thence began his association with the god Zeus-Amun. The coins struck during his lifetime were supposed to depict Heracles, but they bore the likeness of Alexander.
>>79189 >>79047 >>79218 Rome got whooped by the Punic peoples and switched from large hoplite formations and phalanxes to smaller maniples with their own subgroups and their subgroups (centuries, deca-somethings). This gave the Romans maximum maneuverability. Couple that with the Gladius and scutum which covered nearly there whole body they were an unstoppable force. Now heres where the Romans really won. They were always well fed, well rested, their camps were fortified, they had an incredible marching ethic, and they were always aggressive. Macedonians would need to be Masters of logistics Have an army line so long it stretched for miles so the Romans couldn't outflank them Have a well defended camp at all times Be well fed and well rested at all times Be physically fit all around no slackers Be extremely well trained in close quarters combat if the Romans did manage to break the pike line Have the ability to counter the Roman's counter phalanx tactics (angling shields, throwing pilum, and closing in virtually untouched)
The Macedonians did not have a standardized army regiment for training or logistics so we cant just assume that one would be made. The Macedonians did not have any nor did they develope any counter tactics for heavy infantry which they never faced (persian armies were just collections of large groups of tribesmen all speaking a different language, gaugamela must have been a strategic nightmare for the Persians). The Macedonians did not go the extra mile when it came to fortification (they could be attacked at any time by the Romans but the Romans would be safe all the time). Macedonians were just peasants levied to be pikemen which takes little skill, sure they became battle hardened vets but after a what, 13 year campaign? Romans were battle hardened right out of training and they trained constantly when on campaign. Roman families had upwards of 12 kids 8 of made it to adulthood.
Both men were revered, defied even, but deification is more flattering to Alexander, because Greeks did not have a long history of idolizing their kings as gods.
How can Caesar be more relevant when Alexander was Caesar's model and inspiration? You're truly grasping at straws now. Alexander was responsible for Hellenizing the territories formerly controlled by Persia, including Egypt and parts of modern day Pakistan. Western history itself is divided into Hellenic (pre Alexander) and Hellenistic (post Alexander). Many of the cities he founded are still standing today, most prominently Alexandria, which your beloved Caesar partially destroyed along with its splendid library.
The Romance is indicative of the scope of his legend. Many primitive tribes and peoples created their own legends about Alexander, or applied existing legends to him. Alexander essentially became a mythological figure, and was revered as such for nearly a millennium, when more realistic accounts resurfaced. As in most cases, the fact is more interesting than the fiction.
The depiction of Alexander as a drunken lunatic is chiefly the legacy of that miserable demagogue Demosthenes, whom Phillip repeatedly humiliated. Alexander inherited the Athenian's hatred of his father, and when he had the Athenian philosophy Callisthenes put to death for plotting against his life, his reputation was doomed to eternal slander.
"More likely"? According to who? The sources you choose to accept?
It's quite probable that at different times the title has referred to different men. In the time of Muhammad it would have almost certainly referred to Alexander. You cannot seriously maintain that Islamic scholarship is at a higher level today than it was during the golden ages of the Abbassids. Islamic accounts of history have changed so radically over the centuries because of contact with the outside world and social upheavals. It's classical scholarship versus modern scholarship. I don't buy the latter
>>83851 Romans lost over 80,000 men at Cannae and then raised another army nearly just as big. The Roman warmachine (Republic-early Imperial era) had a virtually endless supply of battle ready legionaries at any given time. And Macedonia would have caught the Romans in their early Republican days so its safe to assume that the Romans would have employed the aforementioned.
>>83887 >>83851 All in all, Rome would have smashed Macedonia. Macedonia was nothing without Alexander. Even with Alexander Rome would have won out simply because of their battlefield superiority, not to mention they dominated the seas after the second Punic war. Alexander would have had to have crossed the Alps to get to Rome and we all know how that turns out, even for a general skilled at fighting Romans. Romans just take a beating and endure, they can tank every enemy.
Later generations of Macedonians would have been tougher and more refined in their skills. It's fair to imagine their tactics would have evolved as well, assuming that Alexander or some similarly gifted heir had been alive to lead them.
Macedonians were notoriously poor at defense, which is probably part of the reason Alexander never bothered with it. But being outflanked was par for the course when Alexander took the field. In point of fact he exploited these long lines, stretching them out until they thinned, and then punching straight through the gap with his companion cavalry. That might not have been as effective if the Roman commander didn't occupy the center of his formations, as the Persian King did. Alexander always took the right wing, as was tradition in Macedon.
Alexander was a master of logistics, but it's hard to see anyone else being as competent as him. As far as dealing with fortified targets, no one in the ancient world was better.
Fitness wise you have to calculate general Greek military prowess. The Silver Shields for instance were still extremely effective despite most of them being over 60 years old.
The phalanx was already becoming outdated as a key formation in Alexander's day. He adopted his father's tactic of using it as a placeholder to fix the enemy center while the cavalry ran back and forth, crashing down on the flanks as they began to show weakness.
Heavy infantry would likely have been fixed in place and harassed, either by the light skirmishers or the singers, while Alexander worked around them.
I wouldn't place too much trust in Roman tactics and fitness. There were multiple occasions where entire legions were wiped out in an afternoon because of incompetence and poor leadership.
If Macedon had gone to war with Rome, it would have been no earlier than 310 BC, which puts Alexander around 50. Phillip was assassinated at 46, so that's still fighting fit in the ancient world
Alexander gave a speech where he recounted the sorry plight of the Macedonians before Phillip, when they lived in constant fear of being raided by their neighbors, and where the lords wore sheepskins to show their status (in other words, they were poor as devils)
>>84457 and was the part lost the earliest after alexander's death The greek influence into the subcontinent was very low, the only inscriptions by the mauryans in greek are in present day afghanistan.
>>83599 They do magically fall to Alexander. The attestations are to Cyrus the Great, always have been and always will be. Your head canon won't change this. The fact don't match in the Koran with Alexander but they have always matched with Cyrus' movements, expeditions, conquests, and even his fucking directions in establishing the Persian Empire, nothing corrobrates with Alexander.
And it is patently bullshit that Persians, being the staunchest of early Islam's greatest opponents would be inanely attributed automatically in some sort of insane revisionism your paranoid delusional little mind would concoct to remove a western figure from their eyes in any sort of respect.
Especially since Cyrus was already heavily invested and referenced in the fucking Torah and Bible already which Islam is heavily influenced from in the first place.
Try to apply yourself more, faggot.
>Alexander appears in the bible Only once, in a single allusion. His importance is nothing compared to Cyrus at all to Christians or Jews. Cyrus is more relevant because his interactions are more influential and his impact on them is greater.
>I never attempt to downplay any of Cyrus' accomplishments Nice lies, you troglodyte. >I simply believe Alexander's were more impressive. And you are wrong, so end you fucking amateur
>Egyptian Gods Irrelevant you piss-ant shit-eating cocksucker. The Achaemenids installed governors to rule Egypt, Cyrus had nothing to do with the conquest of Egypt, his son did and . Cyrus was the one who had the title of "King of the Four Corners of the World" and Alexander didn't.
Persians weren't fucking interested in being deified so this is a moot argument, you dumb sack of shit.
>>84548 the Indian provinces were very VERY difficult to hold by the persians, even though they made mad monies. Seleucus just said fuck it and gave it away to Chandragupta. >>84597 >hellenization was a good thing >implying that athe later mix of re-persianization by the parthians on top of hellenism and meme-buddhism wasn't the best thing in persia.
>>84597 You aren't a Persian and your low level bait really isn't worth replying too.
>>84630 It was a stable part of the Empire from the moment it was anexed and Alexander failed to get anywhere near to their holdings or recovering them in Central Asia and the Caucasus outside of Armenia.
Getting testy, are we? Could it be that you're losing ground?
There are volumes of solid scholarship that identify Alexander as the figure mentioned in the Koran. Only lately has that scholarship come to be questioned, and reason have nothing to do with history and everything to do with religious perception. If you haven't noticed, the Muslim faith has become quite history-sensitive as of late.
I'm not completely sure about the Two-Horned One, but based on what I've read and studied it seems to fit Alexander better than Cyrus. The Syriac legend Qisas Dhul-Qarnayn (Tales of the Two Horned One) is essentially synonymous with the Persian Variant known as Iskandarnamah (The Book of Alexander).
>The version recorded in Syriac is of particular importance because it was current in the Middle East during the time of the Quran's writing and is regarded as being closely related to the literary and linguistic origins of the story of Dhul-Qarnayn in the Quran. The Syriac legend, as it has survived, consists of five distinct manuscripts, including a Syriac Christian religious legend concerning Alexander and a sermon about Alexander attributed to the Syriac poet-theologian Jacob of Serugh (451-521 AD, also called Mar Jacob). The Syriac Christian legend concentrates on Alexander's journey to the end of the World, where he constructs the Gates of Alexander to enclose the evil nations of Gog and Magog, while the sermon describes his journey to the Land of Darkness to discover the Water of Life (Fountain of Youth). These legends concerning Alexander are remarkably similar to the story of Dhul-Qarnayn found in the Quran.
>Finally, the surah also mentions "a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth"—namely, Dhul-Qarnayn. He relates that a storyteller told him that Dhul-Qarnayn was a Greco-Egyptian (an accurate description of Alexander):
Greco-Egyptian does not fit Cyrus the Great even remotely.
>>84686 >it was a stable part of the empire >nearly constant rebellions and independent kingdoms forming all the time >takshashila barely has any architectural semblance of achemeniad rule >during the later era of achmeniad rule it was completely lost.
The Persian emperor wasn't deified anymore than medieval European monarchs were. And yes of course he took the title of Egyptian pharaoh after he conquered Egypt. So did Alexander, and the Ptolemies. That's how you legitimized your rule of Egypt, by being declared pharaoh.
>>84742 >Getting test, are we? Getting delusional, are we? >Could it be that you're losing ground? On in your imagination, my psychotic shitposter.
>Two Horned One:
Book of Daniel further matches with the Koran in corroborating it is Cyrus:
>"In the vision I was looking and saw myself in Susa the capital, in the province of Elam, and I was by the river Ulai. 3 I looked up and saw a ram standing beside the river. It had two horns. Both horns were long, but one was longer than the other, and the longer one came up second. >I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. All beasts were powerless to withstand it, and no one could rescue from its power; it did as it pleased and became strong. 5 As I was watching, a male goat appeared from the west, coming across the face of the whole earth without touching the ground. The goat had a horn between its eyes. 6 It came toward the ram with the two horns that I had seen standing beside the river, and it ran at it with" >The rams of Persia and Media
>>84759 >Maximum extent of the Persian Empire: 8.5 million square kilometers >Maximum extent of Alexander's Empire: 5.2 million square kilometers
>>84782 It was a province of Persia even Alexander's attack on the empire and they were sending troops to Darius III.
>>78285 Do you know any Iranians? They're all hyper-intelligent and cool to boot. The highest mark of social status in Iranian culture is to be highly educated. I basically became a Persoboo after university because I knew so many awesome Iranians.
>>84139 Keep in mind in Rome good leaders are plentiful, good generals well its trial by fire but more often than not the incompetence fades away. Macedon however we won't know the strength of their leaders as they were all lead by Alexanders strategies. We don't know the quality of Macedonian generals in comparison to Roman generals. Silver shields were a small minority. The entire Roman legion was fit. While the cavalry ram on the flanks may have worked >See Cannae The Romans would have dominated the Macedonian phalanxes and most likely would have outnumbered them completely. Alexander also didn't have a surplus of high quality troops however the Romans did. Every man lost Alexander becomes weaker ratio wise than every man the Romans lost. The Romans could lose 10 men of the same quality to every 1 Macedonian and still triumph. The time when entire legions were wiped out.... They always recovered (leave out the later imperial era) They recovered nearly instantly and learned from their mistakes. Roman tactics would have been superior simply because they were aggressive and had maneuverability and unchallenged close quarters combat ability. That is a winning combo against anyone. Romans would have fielded Etruscan style hoplites in 310, but even then you cant rule out Carthage coming to town at that time when Macedon expanded. Carthage would have utilized their light african infantry/cavalry mixed with spanish heavy cavalry and spanish heavy infantry and would have dominated the battlefield. >>84177 The Alexander remarked what a glorious thing the sons of shepards march in the land of kings....
>>84742 >Thus in the light of the above, it is possible to conclude that of all the historical conquerors who had died before the revelation of the Quran, Cyrus alone is the one to whom the characteristics of "Dhul-Qarnain" are most applicable. There is no other historical conquerors to whom the characteristics stated in the Quran are as much applicable as to Cyrus. By the way buddy, both Western and Islamic scholars have generally agreed the most historically accurate depiction and basis for the Two-Horned is Cyrus the Great. The parallels most aptly fit with him.
>>84947 Of course. Because the Athenians and that other Greek city-state whose name I can't recall actually instigated the wars with the Persians in the first place.
It would have been a glorious war. I don't see the Macedonians having much of chance on their own, but augmented with Persian elites and maybe some throwaway Indian or Sogdian infantry, loyal Thracians and Alexander's own crossbred successors who were trained from boyhood?
>>84798 Taking the title of Pharaoh doesn't automatically fall under the same pretext or context as deifying oneself. Even the Romans looked at the Greeks and Egyptians as being decadent and degenerates for having the hubris of doing so.
It was the same case with Cyrus' son conquering Egypt and taking the title of Pharaoh. As for proskynesis, that is merely submitting to the fact someone is higher on the social strata or class system to you and has no bloody relevance for comparing to see one self as a god.
It has relevance when you consider that the Greeks thought prostration was for the gods. They would have viewed Persian kings as self-deified despots, and I think it's more than fair to say these Great Kings viewed themselves as one step below deities, at the very least.
>>85126 >It has relevance. It does not. Because the comparison was the fact that Greeks and Egyptians literally were into the whole "becoming" Gods bullshit and the Persians were not. >They would have viewed the Persian kings as self-deified despots Funny how Xenophon and Herodotus both say contrary to this bullshit, but go ahead and keep repeating yourself as much as you want. >it's more than fair to say No its not because there's no basis for it.
>We can do this all night Sure we can, and I'll keep mocking you for it. Your the one in the minority here, your the one peddling a claim that has never been historically accepted then or now.
Alexander drug his own forces as far as India. I don't see why it's logistically impossible.
If he had started his circumnavigation around Africa by going west from Egypt, he would have found the ancient settlement of Carthage pretty soon. I'm pretty sure he would have had sense enough to not march elephants over the Alps if he chose to follow Hannibal's route.
>>85183 And his forces fought a few battles in India and had enough of it before growing angry and nearly mutinying. also, marching across libya with a big army is gonna be pretty difficult without infrastructure.
And yet of all those cultures, the Persians were by far the most given over to luxuriating and living in splendor.
You think you have popular support because there are one or two other sycophants in this thread, but serious scholarship is not on your side in the least.
Alexander didn't want to be defied. He thought himself divine, and wanted his worldly honors to reflect that. By any estimation he earned the right to divine honors. Just because Cyrus was more modest in his ambitions doesn't make him ipso facto a more respectable or better king. He just appeals more to you for those reasons. And it's patently obvious where the bad blood lies here. I've haven't had one negative thing to say about Cyrus, whereas you're throwing crude and senseless insults at Alexander. It's rather pathetic.
Well they could have launched and incursion to Syracuse over the water, or sailed along the Libyan coast instead of venturing into the interior. Alexander had no real idea just how huge Africa was. His geographic notions were typical of the time.
Not that person but Alexander was a cunt. Also, you admit that Alexander thought himself divine whereas Cyrus was a lot more modest in his ambitions, yet conclude that the Persian shahanshahs were therefore pharaonic god-kings whereas Alexander didn't want to be deified by anyone.
No one thought the shahanshahs were in any way divine. Do you know anything at all about pre-Islamic Persian religious beliefs?
>>85247 >And yet of all those cultures, the Persians were by far the most given over to luxuriating and living in splendor. No, but continue your attempts at exaggeration and blatant lying.
>You think I know.
>sycophants I made no reference to any other posters supporting my arguments, implicitly or explicitly. I'm talking about actual scholars and researchers in academia, my lying anon.
>Alexander didn't want to be deified Evidence of his character says otherwise >He thought himself divine Greek hubris, who'd have thought it? >By any estimation Translation: "In my subjective beliefs and narrow-minded viewpoint" >Just because Cyrus was more modest in his ambitions doesn't make him upso facto a more respectable or better king. Yes it does. It is objective. Cyrus was not grandiose, Cyrus was not overly ambitios, Cyrus did not murder or fly into insane psychotic rages or cause the death of his inner circle of confidants and friends with his paranoia.
Cyrus is a better king and a better ruler because he applied fucking wisdom to what he did, and thousands of years later the world still respects him for his accomplishments and singular standing being recognized in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam making him unique.
He appeals to me because he did more with less relatively and he is a better person then Alexander, that simple.
>Its patently obvious That you are an insane Alexanderfag? Yes that's where it stems from. And you have thrown ad hominems and attempted to poison the well several times so don't sell me that bullshit.
To be fair that was after a 10 year march. He could have returned to Greece and raised a fresh army. Anyone with two feet and a working brain would have gladly followed him, given his accomplishments and the bounty brought back from his campaign.
I clearly said that Persian kings would have appeared as self-deified despots. How they personally felt about their status is a completely different matter, but they lived in a fashion that suggested, if not outright affirmed, divine status. The Great King was considered a sacred person.
>>85247 >And yet of all those cultures, the Persians were by far the most given over to luxuriating and living in splendor. Achaemenid Persians weren't huge into slavery, the Greeks and especially Hellenstic cultures as well as the Romans specifically were. I'm not sure where this whole decadence or lazy life style claim is coming from but societies like Rome where slaves made up to more then 1/3rd of their entire nation's population in Italy says otherwise.
>>85327 >I clearly said that Persian kings would have appeared as self-deified despots. How they personally felt about their status is a completely different matter, but they lived in a fashion that suggested, if not outright affirmed, divine status. The Great King was considered a sacred person And there is no source that ever corroborated this claim, this is just your misguided view.
I'm looking at deification with rulers and the most common hits are Egyptians, Hellenistic world along with the Greeks and Macedonians and Romans to a lesser degree. I don't see any actual historical evidence of Persian Emperors deifying themselves or considering themselves God-Kings.
>>85407 >scaphism Every culture has their own ways to torture or execute someone, this has nothing to do with anything.
>>85431 Your insults run like water because their as worthless as your counter arguments. I already explained why Cyrus is better then Alexander, you never countered or provided evidence to the contrary on anything except your own personal head canon crap.
>>85357 >And there is no source that ever corroborated this claim, this is just your misguided view.
Do you have any idea how sumptuously the Persian kings lived? They were some of the best kept and best adorned monarchs in history. Why do you think Alexander was captivated by them? He saw the wonderful possessions and pleasures afforded to Darius, a man of straw, and thought with a shudder what such a culture could give a man of tempered steel.
>>85467 >Do you have any idea how sumptuously the Persian kings lived? Do you have any idea how sumptuously the Roman emperors lived? Or Spanish and French kings?
>They were some of the best kept and best adorned monarchs in history There were plenty others that match or exceed them in those respects. >Why do you think Alexander was captivated by them? Why do you think the entire world was captivated by them?
>Your insults run like water because their as worthless as your counter arguments. I already explained why Alexander is better than Cyrus, you never countered or provided evidence to the contrary on anything except your own personal head canon crap. >Cry me a river, you little shit.
See the problem here m8? This is classic 4chan-level debating
>>85531 >You would seriously maintain than Darius III was a competent monarch and a brave commander? He never said anything about Darius III.
>I think you'd have trouble finding a person in history who had a harder life than Alexander I'd agree with him and anyone else who'd say that Cyrus the Great had a rougher life then Alexander. His own grandfather tried to kill him repeatedly, his father was killed while he was a teenager and the entire burden of the Persian Revolt and the leadership fell on him as a barely unproven youth.
Cyrus fought for everything he had. And his entire life was filled with conflict. There's a big reason why the Greeks epitomized the ultimate ruler in Cyrus the Great.
>>85558 You are a shitposter because you offer nothing but lies and circular arguments because you can do nothing else like a broken record. The truth hurts doesn't it?
>And I think Do you even know of the grandiose bullshit Roman emperors did? Like a certain Roman Emperor who had an entire castle built as a boat and floated it in a river as his personal orgy place while spending money on fruitless public works while making more Circus Maximums for no reasons?
Do you think every Persian Emperor was like Darius III or Xerxes in terms of extravagant luxury you are insane.
If Cyrus had a harder life, it was only in consequence of it being twice as long. Alexander survived wounds that would be considered mortal today even with modern medicine.
Alexander didn't have to invade Persia or march for a decade to reach the end of the world. No necessity drove him there. After he sacked Persepolis he could have turned around and rested on his laurels for the next 60 years. But he chose to risk his neck, again and again, and he put himself through unimaginable hardships in pursuit of his dream.
It's not hard to see the Persian Kings reaching Roman levels of decadence if Alexander hadn't come along and shaken them awake. If Xerxes having the Hellespont flogged for destroying his bridges isn't grandiose, I don't know what is.
>>85751 >If Cyrus had a harder life, it was only in consequence of it being twice as long. Wrong. He had a harder life because the odds were always against the moment he was born when his own grandfather had attempted to repeatedly murder him as a child. The duration of his life is not the reason of this. >Alexander survived wounds that would be considered mortal today even with modern medicine. Yeah sure. >Alexander didn't have to invade Persia He did, just like his father had planned on doing so before his assassination out of want and greed for glory. Putting himself constantly in danger on purpose and taking unnecessary risks to pad out his vanity and hubris is well known in academia.
I'm sorry if you think this puts him above Cyrus but I don't see it that way. Cyrus survived multiple assassination attempts from his own grandfather, the ruler of the powerful Median Empire. He successfully became a general even as a greenhorn soldier leading the Persian Revolt, and later conquering the Median Empire and defeating the Babylonian Empire and Lydian Empire afterwards.
Just because he felt he didn't have the need to insanely continue expanding the newly formed Persian Empire's boundaries doesn't mean he faced less danger or less hardship then Alexander.
After all Alexander at least was born under the protection of Philip II and his established Macedonian Kingdom. Cyrus was adopted by a peasant while his grandfather still actively searched him out to slay him to delay a prophecy that would come to be the barer of his own downfall.
>Its not hard to see the Persian Kings reaching Roman levels of decadence Its hard to see it because there's literally only two examples of it while there are dozens if not more of Romans and Hellenstic rulers like the Ptolomies and Seleucids had their own crazy batshit.
Also a very CERTAIN Roman emperor had lashed the sea too in rage. You're projecting this onto the Persians because you are trying to vilify them.
>>78455 >Thus, Darius says proudly: "Trained am I both with hands and with feet. As a horseman I am a good horseman. As a bowman I am a good bowman both afoot and on horseback. As a spearman I am a good spearman both afoot and on horseback" No wonder everyone thought Greek rhetoric was so amazing.
Alexander was fighting in battles before he was 15. His father exiled him for insulting him at a wedding shortly before he was assassinated. There was ceaseless intrigue between his mother and father which made his life a conflicted hell. One of his early tutors beat him regularly and purposely starved him, which is probably why he never grew to full stature. And that's all before becoming king.
>taking a three foot long arrow through the lung leading to pneumothorax isn't considered a life threatening injury
Not to mention that by the time he died, he had been wounded by every kind of weapon known to man. The only caveat was that all his wounds were in front.
Necessity is a much stronger compulsion than the drive for glory, which meant Alexander's drive had to be very great indeed. It's not a coincidence that he dropped dead before his 33rd birthday. The life of Cyrus was filled with hardship and glory, to be sure, but I think where we diverge is our opinion of ambition.
But I really don't understand how anyone who idolizes Cyrus the Great can have such rancor towards Alexander. Are you not aware of the expense he spared to restore the Tomb of Cyrus to perfection after it had been broken open and looted in his absence (most likely by the local Persian governor)?
This wonderful structure is intact and sealed today because Alexander chose to preserve it.
>>85996 Not that anon but Alexander had nothing to do with preserving Cyrus' tomb, he just had it re-adorned. Iranians themselves have kept the tomb around intact for thousands of years since Cyrus' death.
Also nothing about that really puts him above Cyrus.
>>79674 >Also pisses me off that the muslims and arabs take credit for the "islamic golden age" - something that never really happened in an organized way and was by and large pushed for by Iranians and some Turkics. What about in Cordoba? It wasn't just the Jews who got stuff done there.
>>85996 I'll just repeat: Cyrus had his grandfather trying to kill him his entire life before adulthood, as soon as he ascended the throne as the local king of the Persians, his grandfather invaded and the Persian Revolt began when he was barely 20-22 years old, he overcame insane odds to win and defeated and conquered three regional super powers who were unified in an alliance against him while humiliating a fourth (Egypt) before his son would dispatch them for good.
The difference where I draw the line is Cyrus far outstrips Alexander as a ruler and leader and his humility and humanity combined with the facets of his rule is what instigates him in people's mind as one of the greatest rulers of all time.
He was not reckless, he was not overly ambitious, he was not some insane vain-glorious psychopath or lunatic who pushed his men or people constantly in danger. He established himself in the annals of history, which is why you'll find plenty of people who'll contest an argument on Alexander vs Cyrus siding with the "Father" of the Persians.
He had his royal scribe note all the items in the tomb and replaced everything exactly as it was when he came back and found it had been plundered. Then he sealed it off to thwart future thieves.
If he hadn't cataloged the items, it would not be intact as it is today, and if he had anything less than total reverence for Cyrus, he could easily have ignored it or even had it pulled down. Obviously it was not safe to leave in the care of the temple guardians, who had neglected their duties.
What happened after his death is another matter.
A decade of Alexander's relentless campaigning and hand to hand fighting would probably have shortened Cyrus' lifespan to 40 years.
Its funny because outside of having polar opposite personalities between Cyrus and Alexander, both of these men pretty much started their careers as rulers and conquerors in their early 20s. The biggest difference is Alexander is more ingrained to the world because of the relevance of the Western world while his dreams burned with him and Cyrus' outlasted his own life yet is lesser known despite being arguably slightly more relevant.
>>86126 >A decade of Alexander's relentless campaigning and hand to hand fighting would probably have shortened Cyrus' lifespan to 40 years. I don't agree with this. This is what Cyrus did and this was when you had multiple Near Eastern kingdoms and small empires at their height while nomadic tribes like various confederations of Parnis and Scythians were invading from Central Asia and Eurasia into the Caucaus and Iranian plateau.
I'd say if anything Alexander would burn out faster then Cyrus did.
And you'll find just as many people, even non-Greeks, who rate Alexander above Cyrus because they believe his deeds were superior, and because they share his love of glory and danger.
But Cyrus was more like Alexander than you realize. They both wore shimmering armor in battle, to mark out who they were. Both of them attempted to march through the Gedrosian desert against better advice, but Alexander actually made it through (it was disastrous in both cases). Alexander and Cyrus were both humane towards women (Alexander reportedly would not even set eyes on the Persian queen, out of modesty) and sexually chase. There are numerous other parallels besides these.
>>86188 I doubt that, majority of people aren't aware of Cyrus if they were it'd be the opposite; Alexander is simply more well known because its a Western world we live in that influences everything and you can't say his deeds are better because objectively they aren't and the main factor is ignorance surrounding Cyrus. It doesn't matter either way because the end game is Cyrus did as much as Alexander, and established more with how religion treats him and the Greeks setting him up as the universal standard for all rulers.
>>86194 The Cyropedia was intended as biblography of Cyrus's life, accomplishments, and deeds. It was not 100% accurate but its generally considered informed enough that most historians trust it even if it gets some details wrong given it was written more then a century after Cyrus was already dead.
Alexander dealt with many of these same tribes, and brought several of them to heel which all Persian kings until that point (including Cyrus) had failed to subdue (the Cossaeans, for instance).
Cyrus was not nearly so reckless as Alexander. There are several instances in his history where the only thing that seems to have preserved him is dumb luck, like when the Tyrians sprayed burning hot sand at the invading Macedonians.
>>82598 >Cyrus was honored and respected by his people, surely, but Alexander was revered like a god by his. No, the Greeks were pretty angry about Alexander demanding Persian style rites of obeisance. Successor states trying to push their own legitimacy years after the fact isn't the same thing.
It had factual inaccuracies, many of which were rectified in the Greek canon as a result of Alexander's expedition. Alexander was deeply impressed to learn that Cyrus had actually been killed in battle, rather than dying peacefully in his capital, as Xenophon reported.
>>86244 No he didn't. Also the Cosseans were integrated in several milita and local army units for Satraps in the Central and Eastern provinces of the Achaemenid, the Persians had dealt with them.
There were roving Iranian tribes they failed to fully subdue but they kept them away from the empire proper and when they got too ambitious usually a Persian ruler would smack them hard enough they'd stay back like the Royal Scythians.
>>86289 We don't even know how Cyrus died. This is the biggest mystery of his life to this day where there are dozens of contradictory claims of when it happened, how it happened, and where it happened.
>>83851 >Couple that with the Gladius and scutum which covered nearly there whole body they were an unstoppable force. >They were always well fed, well rested, their camps were fortified, they had an incredible marching ethic, and they were always aggressive. 4th century Romans were kind of shit desu ne
The Persian kings until then had paid the Cosseans a regular tribute for safe passage along the mountain road where their forts were. Alexander was the first to refuse the tribute and attack them directly. What remained of them was not much, and their forts were pulled down.
Just as great a mystery is what killed Alexander, and where his body is today.
>>86188 > Alexander and Cyrus were both humane towards women (Alexander reportedly would not even set eyes on the Persian queen, out of modesty) and sexually chase. Alexander wasn't chaste. He just wasn't interested in women.
>>86494 Persian Kings had Cosseans in their armies, it was just a tribe of them in canyons and ravines near Persepolis were fortified and could ambush them. The Achaemenids simply felt paying a small "fee" to travel through that area was worth it vs a protracted conflict.
Relatively, Alexander did far far worse against the Indians then the Persians did.
Thread replies: 359 Thread images: 46
Thread DB ID: 69535
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.