ALEXANDER, where should I start with the

If were not Greeks why then Persians called them Yauna Takabara as called and the rest of the Greeks (Yuana) ?

Exactly.  But you will never here these Western/Pro-Greek sources telling you this.  According to them, they WERE Greek(which is ridiculous!)

I will never stop to fight agaist it.

obviusly you support you opion by basic the term Nation in a gene/blood base. I am sorry but people with such ideas brought too much pain in the world.

 Nations are base in common languadge, religion (when we talk about nations in the past) and a common sense of we are the same.

 Like it or not the macedonias in the historical time that we talk about have: The same languadge with greeks, the same religion andthe same common sense that they are the same with the others greeks. So why aren't greeks????

 I really can't understant some dudes that believe a "scientist' that claim: macedonias wasn't greeks because in their Y chromosom they have a different gene......

 Pure stupinity, isn't it...

i need a source, i can make up a quote without posting a source too. i need proof.

are you kidding me? the sogdian kingdom, the bactrian kingdom, all of these were around even before the achaemenid empire got founded! there was civilisation there!

and how dare you say the selucids brought civilisation. while you europeans were in your caves and mud huts the elamites, persians, medeans, sumerians, etc... were living in cities and palaces.

dont talk to us about civilisation. if anything, alexander should have brought civilisation to europe form the east, because besides greeks, there was no other european civilisation.

both were conqueres were they not? if alexander is a hero for conquering then so should attila.

your source?

he wasnt bringing freedom to anyone, he was conquering them, just like he conquered the greek city states, and savagly kept them under his control.

alexander destroyed democracy in greece, he wasnt a friend to the other greek cities, he was trying to conquer them all, just the same as he was trying to do with persia.

how dare you talk to us about civilisation?

alexander destroyed civilisation, he didnt bring it.

the destruction of countless persian texts and the burning of perspolis.

the movie just made him look like a hero, when in reality there is nothing heroic about him.

if he is a hero than so is ghenghis khan, attila the hun, etc...

lol, accurate with some propaganda and and some classical western bias thrown in.

the blond hair thing is western propaganda that came up in western films depicting the white man conquering the orients and stuff like that.

most logical people know his hair was black/brown.

no he wasnt, infact, he destroyed democracy in greece before he went on his campaign in Persia.

Originally posted by Digenis 3)like what ?

the good things or the bad things?

no the movie was highly inaccurate:

1) alexander did not have blonde hair and blue eyes.

2) alexander was not trying to spread democracy and freedom

3) the movie only showed the "good" things alexander did.