Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Cyrus the Great vs Alexander

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Cyrus the Great vs Alexander
    Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 18:25

Cyrus didnt conqure Egypt and didnt conqure Assyria, Assyria was already conquered by Cyrus's grand father king of the Median Empire who later Cyrus fought and United Media with Persia.

only Babylonia wasn't under Medias king's controle and Cyrus got it with a  bloodless victory.

 

about comparing Alexander with Cyrus, Alexander for sure conquered more than Cyrus,

Cyrus was wise and diplomatic ruler while Alexander was younger and wasn't wise enough to rule, but then he died young and didnt have the chance to actully rule an empire. he kept conquering till he died.

 

Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 19:21

Originally posted by Leonidas


alexander was a fusion type of guy. Why wont you provide sources he is otherwise, i have used sources so why cant you move beyond broad staments and just opinion.

what do you mean by paganism? in your world would the yezidi's have thought he was their champion?

I provided links, its ur job to follow them. To bypass them is YOUR fault not mine.


Originally posted by Leonidas


..but wait you said
"Alexander was a big east meets west guy rather a west rules all guy."
make up you mind. either agree or or disagree. and provide sources

My mistake I meant "Alexander was NOT a big east meets west guy, rather a west rules all guy. That was my error. But Again I provided my source very clearly.

Originally posted by Leonidas


more sweeping staments:
the goal of Alexander was clear, kill Persians
he recruited persians and bactrians into his army, how would he kill them?
while the hellenic troops were being sent home. Do you know of some plan to  recruit more greeks into his army? please tell me how he was goin to wipe out persians?

hmm...Of course recruit Persians in the army, so they can die for him. Did he give any major leadership or general posts to Persians, I think not.

Originally posted by Leonidas


"Then, Alexander, the Greek seers and the Persians Magians poured the ritual libations and Alexander prayed for future harmony and partnership in rule between Macedonians and Persians. All 9,000 guests repeated this prayer (text).

This is highly significant. The 'partnership in rule' meant that the Iranians were to be the backbone of Alexander's army, and the Macedonians were to be administrators. We have already seen above that Alexander had already started a policy to appoint Europeans as satraps."
link

Precisely my point. DO u honestly think Alexander gave a damn about the fate of Iranians after he took them as slaves and killed so many. NO, he just saw the use of them as labor while he administrated and let Persians die.

Originally posted by Leonidas

and steal their wives until the land eventually became bastardized."
also your second guessing intent with his promotion of mix marriage. Alexanders mind is what we know lest about.

"likewise Alexander wanted his soldiers to rape and to take Iranian women to a)make it look politically good even though most of the marriages didn't work out"
because again you know what he wanted.. those marriages didnt seem polically popular from what ive read.

"The Persian court rituals and the forced marriages did not much to improve the relations between Alexander and the Macedonian elite. Even worse was to come: a corps of 30,000 young Bactrians (above) arrived in Susa. They were trained to fight in the phalanx, and were called the Epigonoi, the 'successors'. "
link

"The introduction of Iranians to the army, the marriage to a Sogdian princess, proskynesis and the execution of the pages and their accomplishes: all these incidents must have served to estrange Alexander from the Macedonians and Greeks in his army. Within a year, they were to be in open revolt against their king."
link

I dont know. If I conquered Greece and had my Persian armies take many Greeks as their wives how would u feel?

Originally posted by Leonidas


"Alexander's systematic killing of Persians and destruction of their culture makes me wanna do some serious stuff to him"
systematic killing? but you said he was a east meets west guy? Your way to emotional/bias to read and understand hisory.

Again, he was NOT a big east meets west guy, that was my error in typing. I am sorry. But I still hold that he killed many Iranians, destroyed Persepolis, and took off many slaves.

Alexander was not concerned with "helping" Iranians, he just wanted the stability and control of his empire.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 20:21
Originally posted by Leonidas


they do not differ at all, they both killed lots of people, unlike cyrus,
If you dont know the differnces yourself, then you dont know the story beyond, 'they rode in and killed lots of people' there more to it than that.

  1. is there a cultural legacy? alexander left one.
  2. is there a complete differnce in circumstances? hell yes.
  3. did they give a sh*t about other cultures? well it looks like alex did
  4. who built cities not just destroyed them? alex did.
  5. did genghis like guys?


1.Even Genghis Khan left a culture legacy so what is ur point. Like Genghis Khan he tried to force his ideals onto the ppl he conquered.

2.There are some differences. But by and large they both expanded their empire to conquer ppls, gain power, and ended up slaughtering many ppls

3.Even Genghis cared about some cultures, didn't the Mongols adopt Sunni Islam? And didn't Kublai Khan adopt a Chinese court lifestyle

4. Mongols built cities all the same. Alexander may have built some, but like the Mongols he burnt down the cities of his enemies with no mercy. What the Mongols did to CHina, Alexander did to Persia.

5. I dont Know. But no one said their sexual preferences were similar, we said the way they conducted their devastating genocides and campaigns were similar.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
  Quote strategos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 21:03

Cyrus was exactly like Hitler. He was a smart diplomat justl ike Hitler. He conquered many people such as Hitler. They both spread culture. They both had facial hair...

This is your type of comparisons. Any two things can be compared if you break them simply enough.

SOME mongols became muslim. So what? SOme persians believed in Greek Gods and SOME Greeks believed in Zoroastrium.

How can you fairly compare to men? Who says because Cyrus was a better diplomat makes him a better person? Perhaps Cyrus was just a coward because he couldnt do it by strength of arms. This again is your logic.  

Now you can reply now if you want but I am now out of this topic. Perhaps this should be changed to Historical Amusement because this is becoming a joke..



Edited by strategos
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 23:02
PrznKonectoid wrote:
"
I provided links, its ur job to follow them. To bypass them is YOUR fault not mine."
one link to one guy who's main specialty is theology not history Nice 'links' you provided.

one remark of his that shows how limited he's knowedge of history ...
" Indeed, Alexander was Macedonian, a nationality related to but self-consciously distinct from the Greeks. He was himself a Hellenized person, not least thanks to his tutor, Aristotle."link

but hey if thats what you call research, than that may explain your duboius knowledge of greek history.

"My mistake I meant "Alexander was NOT a big east meets west guy, rather a west rules all guy. That was my error. But Again I provided my source very clearly."
yes that one source, but ive had how many links? from a sites that focus very much on history and not just opinion. so maybe you should follow my links and a learn a little.

"hmm...Of course recruit Persians in the army, so they can die for him. Did he give any major leadership or general posts to Persians, I think not."
all a part of a nasty greek consipiracy that only you have specail information about... thats all second guessing intent and just opinion. Agian read my links.

"Precisely my point. DO u honestly think Alexander gave a damn about the fate of Iranians after he took them as slaves and killed so many. NO, he just saw the use of them as labor while he administrated and let Persians die"
we dont know what he thought, i can admit it. but can you?

ill help you a little, this link takes you to translation of an account when alexander executed two macedionian satraps after local complaints, agian we can never really guess his intent but shows that he was prepared to take sides (for whatever reason) with local complaints. link

so we know that he did take sides sometimes that wasnt greek but persian. If this was well inteneted or not we will never know unless we get alexander in a room and ask him. But im sure you will fill in the blanks for me.

"I dont know. If I conquered Greece and had my Persian armies take many Greeks as their wives how would u feel?"
No you dont know. Persians already attempted that before alexander, i guess he wasnt very impressed. Anyhow if that is the best you got after sources that contradict your position, it only demonstrates your as emotional as the conqueror you despise.

"But I still hold that he killed many Iranians, destroyed Persepolis, and took off many slaves."
I will say every other king and wanabe did the same before and after him, so big deal, what he did was not unique.

"Alexander was not concerned with "helping" Iranians, he just wanted the stability and control of his empire."
Iranians werent concerened in helping anyone exept themselves when they conquered others, so whats your point, beyond subective guess work?
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 23:03

How about everyone cool down a little bit and express yourselves more diplomatically?

 

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 23:22
PrznKonectoid wrote:
"1.Even Genghis Khan left a culture legacy so what is ur point. Like Genghis Khan he tried to force his ideals onto the ppl he conquered."
temujin had strong ideals maybe personal ones, but beyond that? ok please i tell me what was temujin's ideals and how did he fight for them? 

and what cultural legacy are we talking about? i didnt know temujin conquered others to spread mongol culture. this all very new to me, maybe start a new thread.

"4. Mongols built cities all the same"
i thought your comparing to people

"3.Even Genghis cared about some cultures, didn't the Mongols adopt Sunni Islam? And didn't Kublai Khan adopt a Chinese court lifestyle"
you'll have to show me what culutures he cared about.
no mongols didnt adopt sunni islam, that was the turkish tribes and a little later on mind you, mongols adopted tibetan buddhism also later on. we are talking about tamujin here not his succusors. focus PrznKonectoid or stop pulling at straws.

"2.There are some differences. But by and large they both expanded their empire to conquer ppls, gain power, and ended up slaughtering many ppls"
still very simplistic, you'll really need to pull a rabbit out of a hat if you can do some proper comparisons.

otherwise go to here


Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2006 at 23:37

well I don't know what u consider "nice" or "historical" perspectives, ecen the history u read comes from a Greek perspective. Herodotus was just as biased as a modern day Bill O'Reilly. If ur gonna reject my source cuz it doesn't agree with u, I could just as easily reject every source u have, cuz I don't think it is a "nice" source.

At this point I wanna argue, but we have gone over the same points over and over again. I think it is time to agree to disagree. For me Alexander killed many Iranians and was a horrible man, the way Hitler is horrible for many Jews. Maybe that slants my perspective, but not any more than the Greek sources our history is based off of.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2006 at 09:21

Guys give it a rest. You are repeating over and over yourselves. Obviously everyone has made up his mind and wont change it no matter what. Our two Persian friends have a total negative image of Alexander but thats totally understandable and i respect it, as it is their prerogative to think so as it is for some others to think the contrary. The only objection i have is that many of their arguments are based on wrong premises due to deficient knowledge of Alexander's conquests details, as i already addressed some of them previously in my other posts.

For example:

hmm...Of course recruit Persians in the army, so they can die for him. Did he give any major leadership or general posts to Persians, I think not

Thats blatantly wrong! For example i will mention the case of Mazaeus. He was Satrap of Cilicia, later Syria and Mesopotamia, under Artaxerxes III. He also commanded the right wing of Persian army under Darius III at Gaugamela. Even so, this didnt prevent Alexander from appointing Mazaeus as Satrap of the key province of Babylonia. Same with other 20 oriental Satraps - in their vast majority Persian nobles - were in fact appointed or reappointed by Alexander. (The most known case of non-Persian satrap i remember was a woman, Ada of Hallicarnasus who got the satrapy of Lydia and got the honorific title of 'queen'.)

A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2006 at 19:00

well for all u nay sayers of Alexander's atrocities here is some more info from one of my sources.

The only reason he married a Persian women was to try and stop the insurrections he faced in the east.

look at these excerpts, Alexander killed ppl, like Iranians in the Zagros, just cuz his gay lover died.

"In October, Alexander's lover Hephaestion died in Ecbatana. The king was shocked, and as a consolation, he massacred the Cossaeans, a mountain tribe in the Zagros, who were forced to give up their nomad lives and settle in towns. The king also ordered his subjects to sacrifice to Hephaestion as if he were a demigod. The implication was, of course, that he himself -as the greatest of the two lovers- was a god. Indeed, several Greek cities ordered that Alexander should be venerated as the "invincible god". "

Alexander carried out many executions and became, in the words of a Greek historian, "harsher"

"Alexander now ordered the executions of several governors whom he suspected of treason. Probably correctly: in Sogdia, the Punjab and the Indus valley, there were large insurrections, which Alexander was no longer able to suppress. Modern scholars have called these executions the "reign of terror" and our main source, the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writes that Alexander's rule now became 'harsher' (oxyteros). "

In India Alexander also massacres more people, who have already surrendered!

"Late in 327, the Macedonians crossed the Hindu Kush again, and invaded the valleys of the Kabul and Swat. In fact, there was no justification for this attack, but Alexander's courtiers no longer asked questions. Many Indians seemed to identify the conqueror with an avatar of a local deity, who was identified by the Macedonians with their god Dionysus. Fighting was hard and merciless; on more than one occasion, Alexander massacred people who had already surrendered."

and his marriage to Roxane was not out of anything but political ambition

He also married a local princess, Roxane, to win additional local support. But even after these diplomatic moves, the counter-guerrilla continued

wanna know my source? here a "respectable" history source

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander00c.html

Are beginning to see how Alexander is similar to Genghis Khan, not the same, no way, but their ruthless campaigns of slaughter bear resemblence

Now Cyrus the great obviously killed people in war too, every leader has. But he tried to promote the enhancement and growth of the ppls he conquered, and wrote the first human rights declaration.

Alexander was a general, but also a cold-blood killer. His goal was for self-empowerment only, and he did not have the administrative skill of a Cyrus or Darius.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2006 at 15:10

Give us a break here!! You are striving so hard to prove exactly my point about you mentioned in my last post.

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid

well for all u nay sayers of Alexander's atrocities here is some more info from one of my sources.

The only reason he married a Persian women was to try and stop the insurrections he faced in the east.

So, is it the first time you are learning in your life that most marriages among members of royal families were for political purposes???

Well it was about time to learn it. Even Alexander himself was a son of a Macedonian King and an Molossian princess, in other words a politically motivated marriage . This was a common tactic in antiquity in many royal families. Since as already demonstrated, your knowledge about Macedonian traditions seems to be equivalent to zero, more about macedonian monarchy here.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4321& ;KW=monarchy

I am amazed you even mention it since Cyrus the great himself was the son of a marriage between a Persian (Cambyses I) and a Median (Mandane of Media).

A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2006 at 15:14

look at these excerpts, Alexander killed ppl, like Iranians in the Zagros, just cuz his gay lover died.

"In October, Alexander's lover Hephaestion died in Ecbatana. The king was shocked, and as a consolation, he massacred the Cossaeans, a mountain tribe in the Zagros, who were forced to give up their nomad lives and settle in towns. The king also ordered his subjects to sacrifice to Hephaestion as if he were a demigod. The implication was, of course, that he himself -as the greatest of the two lovers- was a god. Indeed, several Greek cities ordered that Alexander should be venerated as the "invincible god". "

Alexander carried out many executions and became, in the words of a Greek historian, "harsher"

"Alexander now ordered the executions of several governors whom he suspected of treason. Probably correctly: in Sogdia, the Punjab and the Indus valley, there were large insurrections, which Alexander was no longer able to suppress. Modern scholars have called these executions the "reign of terror" and our main source, the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writes that Alexander's rule now became 'harsher' (oxyteros). "

In India Alexander also massacres more people, who have already surrendered!

"Late in 327, the Macedonians crossed the Hindu Kush again, and invaded the valleys of the Kabul and Swat. In fact, there was no justification for this attack, but Alexander's courtiers no longer asked questions. Many Indians seemed to identify the conqueror with an avatar of a local deity, who was identified by the Macedonians with their god Dionysus. Fighting was hard and merciless; on more than one occasion, Alexander massacred people who had already surrendered."

And if i follow the same tactic as yours of taking quotes out of context the outcome will be this one.

"After the initial allegiance between the Persians and the Medes, there was a period of peace until the Lydian campaign started in 547.
..............
 A typical Persian strategy is used by Cyrus which is trying to persuade local villages in Ionia to rebel against Croesus but they do not because Croesus was known to be a fair and just ruler. Cyrus promotes this idea of rebellion as he wants to promote an image of him being a better leader for the people than the present one and we see it happening all the way through Cyruss career.

    Cyrus won a victory outside the walls of Sardis and the Lydians hoped for a long siege. Yet Cyrus swiftly manages to storm the place. Cyrus lets the army rape and pillage the town, yet he does restrain his men from total destruction. This is because he looks as the people as potential tax payers, not as a future enemy which shows good initiative and there is archaeological evidence to support this."
.......

From the conquest of Ionia

Mazares takes an army and goes down the coast taking out Greek towns. The first two were Priene and Magnesia. These towns were easily captured and the inhabitants were treated harshly.
There is no overall strategies and there is no co-operation between the towns. Each town seems to be an independent state so it is not difficult for the Persians to take each town out one by one.

Later Mazares dies, probably due to disease, and Cyrus simply sends Harpagus to take over. Harpagus takes over and moves against Phocaea and Toes. The population of Phocaeans decide to leave on ships and sail to Corsica. The Teans just get on the boats until the Persians leave. Most of the other towns decide to give in, bribe Harpagus or get trashed.
......

from babylon conquest

The Persians first encounter was a major battle at Opis on the route to Babylon. The Babylonians were crushed and this was the only major battle fought. Cyrus destroys the city showing the Babylonians that if they resist they will be crushed, He comes on to the next town, Sipper and takes the town without conquest and the message had obviously got across to the Babylonians...


http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/cyrus.htm

In other words we have here as outcome of Cyrus actions and policies, Rape, pillaging, savagery, destruction of cities, etc. Why did Cyrus let his men to rape the Lydian women???? A shameful act...or why was the Babylonian city destroyed?? The Babylonians are said by major historians to surrender anyway. A totally needless action.  According to you and your preeches thats another shameful action showing the sordidness of the one who did it.

Since from the start of the topic, homophobic remarks seem to be the forte of a few posters i think this passage about Achaemenids, from the book of Pierre Briant's  "From Cyrus to Alexander" is interesting for a read.

With or without testicles, 'eunuchs' from all over the Empire seem to have provided the most personal services to the royal family, attending at bedtime and mealtimes, guarding the women, even raising children. ......The women of the palace also reflected the Empire's diversity. The most beautiful girls were sent to Darius' Court from recaptured Greek cities. Following the savage suppression of the revolt of Sidon in Lebanon in the mid-fourth century, large numbers of women were taken prisoner and, the Babylonian Chronicle says, 'entered the King's palace'. His Queen encouraged Darius to make war on Greece, Herodotus says, because she wanted 'Spartan girls, and girls from Argos, Corinth and Athens' to wait on her. The Book of Esther describes the King sending out commissioners to search throughout the Empire in order to bring beautiful young virgins to Susa, which is not, 'outside the realm of possibility'."

As you notice If i was you and was using your own double standards and logic as you showed to us, in all of your posts i could conclude this is a sample of a savage king and similar to Ghenghis khan. However i dont. I consider Cyrus as a great king, rightfully deserving the title of "great" and so i do for Alexander. Obviously you have some issues for some historic figures but try to get over them. This way only you will gain some credibility, a thing you completely lack till now.



Edited by Aeolus
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2006 at 15:44

I have the feeling that this has turned into a Greek vs Persian nationalistic debate more than anything else.

I think it is very difficult to compare the characters of these two great men. True, Western historians have generally tended to treat Alexander very well because they were biased and because most sources describing him were Greek. In the same way, Cyrus the Great is very well presented by Persian historians because they are biased and because accounts of him are Persian. Had we based our assesment of Cyrus on Lydian or Babylonian sources, would we still regard him the same way? Probably not.

There's a train of thought nowadays that Alexander my have been homosexual, as if that somehow makes him a bad person. First of all, we don't actually know whether this was true or not: it's all supposition. The same way that it is supposition that Cyrus may have been wise or cruel or whatever.

We're simply going to have to accept the fact that our knowledge of history is incomplete and we simply cannot properly and fairly compare the character of these 2 individuals. Now, comparing their military achievements is another matter. They are both deserving of the title "The Great" because of their leadership.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Behi View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
  Quote Behi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2006 at 16:43
Originally posted by Decebal

There's a train of thought nowadays that Alexander my have been homosexual, as if that somehow makes him a bad person. First of all, we don't actually know whether this was true or not: it's all supposition. The same way that it is supposition that Cyrus may have been wise or cruel or whatever.

I DISAGREE.
Have u ever seen it??


"I am Cyrus, King of the World....When my soldiers in great numbers peacefully entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorize the people...
I kept in view the needs of people and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... Freed all the slaves
I put an end to their misfortune and slavery (referred to 42,000 Jews and other religious minorities)."


Back to Top
PrznKonectoid View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 27-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote PrznKonectoid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2006 at 20:40

yeah Aeolus do you know who wrote all those things you read about Cyrus the great, Herodotus, a Greek, who despised Persians. His accounts always stretch the truth and are far from believable. Here are numerous lies Herodotus propagates (and Decebal, there are very little "Persian" sources remaining after what Alexander did to Persepolis!! I don't know why you think our history is based off of Persian historians. It is mostly based off Greek, some Babylonian, and some Jewish (in the bible). So if anything the accounts are slanted against him.)

1) He claims that Cyrus the Great was born of the Median king. That as a child his father had a dream and wanted to kill him so he was given to a shepherd and that he grew destined to throw Asytages off the thrown. I don't know the real story but this obviously stretches the truth into fiction. Hey at least he wasn't as bad as Xenophon who claimed Cyrus was raised by wolves!

2)Herodotus talks about a black peoples in southern India so dark that even their semen was black. I think it is self-explanatory why this claim is fake. And I doubt he ever travelled to India

3)Herodotus claims that Cyrus was gonna execute Croesus and that the thunder god sent a storm forewarning that Croesus was a good man Cyrus, a monotheistic man, frees Croesus and pardons him! Ridiculous, yet accepted by historians! Meanwhile the Nabonidus Chronicles in Babylon just say Croesus dies in battle. Hmmm... which one sounds more realistic.

4)Herodotus claims Cambyses goes mad killing Egyptians, commits incest with his own sister, tries to commit suicide, and that he kills one of his governors and makes a chair out of his bones and covered in his skin! Meanwhile Herodotus' sources are all Egyptian, the Egyptians were the ones who lost to him, hmm... I wonder if they could haves stretched the truth a bit. You think?

5)How about the story of Zopyrus, where one of Darius' generals, Zopyrus, scars his faces and approaches the walled city of Babylon claiming to be betrayed by his own Persians, then opens the walls and lets the Persians in to take Babylon. wait a second isn't this...oh yeah a retelling of Troy!! And we know its fake because Herodotus claims Darius appointed Zopyrus as the satrap of Babylon. Well it turns out records remain of all the governors of Babylon, not missing one year during this time period, and Zopyrus does not appear anywhere on the records.

6)Or how about his accounts of the Persian war, he describes the Persian take over of the islands of Datis and Artaphernes as a failed "punitive" strike against Athens. Again, wrong! Darius' forces was far too small to attack Athens, it was only designed to capture Islands as a base for further attacks and to cut-off Greece!

7)Herodotus claims that at the battle of Marathon Persians were crushed in a decisive defeat. While an important source everybody believes Herodotus without the slightest doubt. In fact from the Persian viewpoint it was a rearguard defense. The Greeks stood by and watched as the Persians pillaged and in the attacked as they left, but this was very minimal, not a huge vitctory as Herodotus records. He puts the number of Persians dead at 6,400 and he puts the number of Greek dead at 192. Most people accept this. How can the world's strongest power at that time lose that many to the Greeks who only lost 192! Surely someone has rewritten history. I think more questions should be asked!

And with all this how can we be sure of Herodotus' accuracy on Cyrus. With no real Persian sources (cause most would have been burned by ALexander at Persepolis),  we have no way of contrasting their viewpoints. This is like using a Nazi historian to find out about Jews!

Furthermore Alexander's history is taken down by Greek, Hellenistic historians, so he is portrayed as being good. Again like a Nazi historian writing about Hitler himself. Of course they're gonna portray it as good.

And another thing, even if Alexander was gay, that is not why I say he was a horrible man. I say it cause he slaughtered many peoples.

Want to know more on ancient Iran?
http://www.parsaworld.com
or join our forums
FORUM
Back to Top
Maziar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Arteshbod

Joined: 06-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1155
  Quote Maziar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 15:12

Well in my opinion both of them were great, each of his own way. Cyrus was a great liberator and diplomat, Alexander a great General and courageous leader.

It is impossible to compare these two persons, they lived in different times, they had different cultures and they had different motivations to conquer.

So come on please people!

Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2006 at 15:22
Originally posted by Land of Aryan

Originally posted by Decebal

There's a train of thought nowadays that Alexander my have been homosexual, as if that somehow makes him a bad person. First of all, we don't actually know whether this was true or not: it's all supposition. The same way that it is supposition that Cyrus may have been wise or cruel or whatever.

I DISAGREE.
Have u ever seen it??


"I am Cyrus, King of the World....When my soldiers in great numbers peacefully entered Babylon... I did not allow anyone to terrorize the people...
I kept in view the needs of people and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being... Freed all the slaves
I put an end to their misfortune and slavery (referred to 42,000 Jews and other religious minorities)."


You will notice that I said may have been wise or cruel or whatever. I'm not saying that I believe that he was actually cruel, or wise for that matter. I'm saying that different people may have different opinions on him or any other historical figure, and that often depends on their bias.

One might argue that the above inscription is pure propaganda, and yet another may take it at face value. It depends largely on their bias. I did not actually express an opinion on what I personally believe, so don't get offended.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.