Cyrus the Great vs Alexander

What did cyrus army compose of, i heard the strengths were archers and cavalry is that true if so what were they like?

Kian_the_great, what he did that was good, still depends from what point of view your are coming from, is this not true? You wont agree with what i think, purely becuase you see things from a typical persian perspective.

1 For the greeks, two things
He freed Ionia from persian rule. Ontop of this in the general senese, he not only fought persian agression, more importantly he ended it.

2 For the egyptians, two things
He liberated egypt from what seems like very unpopular persian control. He also creating alexandria, which mind you, went on to become a ancient centre of phillosophy and learning and now a massive city today. You see he can build cities aswell as destroy them.

3 Unique to him alone (The attempted unifying of Persia to Greece atleast from the top)
In the end, he didnt try to destroy persian culture or its people, they became an important building bloc for future growth. Had he lived longer we could of truelly judge if this experiment would of worked. get the best of what persia had and incorperate it with the best greece had, brilliant.

Since he attempted to incorperate persian culture into his own court, he was very unpopular with his own people for it. Examples include; training iranians in hoplite warfare, forced mix marriages, Proskynesis, Persian tiltles and the capital in Babylonia.. Source.

Now its easy to critize someone that was ruthless and from the sounds of it, emotional and impulsive, such critisms are fair. However demonising alexander as someone who's only achievment was killing and conqering people and burning cities is unfair, inaccurate and bias. Then there is this conventianly forgeting, that persian expansion/aggression brought this on, in the first place.

Edited by Leonidas

Originally posted by Leonidas To make another example of alex' ruthlessness and vengeful ways can i point to the fate of the Branchidae inside Sogdiana. Thse people, a hereditary priestly group that were ment to protect Didyma turned over the temple to xerxes, who plundered and burnt it down (479BC), in return for their saftey. Such a sacrilegie ment, they had to leave Ionia for their safty to be garrantued. Move foward around 150 years, they came out to greet alexander's army speaking greek, holding olive branches and submited their city to him. What he did next, was a crime; he wiped out everyone one of them (kids and all) and the city was completety destroyed (327BC). A fate worse than persopolis and to greeks not persians. PBS has a narrative of this event here There is nothing romantic about this revenge or any other, nor is this episode glorified hellenic nationalism. It tells you he was ruthless and unforgiving. But their was something needing forgiving in the first place.  Importantly it also is a good example of the revenge factor in his war within the greater context of the aggresion and insults perpertrated by xerxes. So it isnt romantic to think that revenge is a part of the motive in persopolis, nor is it safe to assume that alexander didnt care for what happened earlier to greece.

 

This is a different subject. Like any other super power Iranians constantly muddled in Greek affair once they noticed that they exist. Even when Darius I attacked Greece he was just trying to put back in place a Greek king that was more aligned to the interest of the Iranians and some Greeks liked the idea and took side with the Persians. These people naturally would be seen as traitors to the people that were in power in Greece at that time. What do yo think Saddam would have done if you could have got his hand on the anyone that was part of US supported Iraqi opposition. Can you picture him having a nice dinner with Chalebi.

Originally posted by Faeghi Im not talking about Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz. Im talking about Persepolis today comparing to the revenge for Athens. Athens is a well known capital, it was the Western world's leading cultural, commercial and intellectual center, and indeed it is in the ideas and practices of ancient Athens that what we now call "Western civilization" has its origins.

 

listen to this: persia had more than one major city, athens was a city state, the athenians had to rebuild it! the persians did no need to waste money and time to rebuild a whole city because they did not need it, they had tens of other major cities to relocate to, the athenians didnt, that is why athens was rebuilt and perspolis wasnt, it has nothing to do with victory or money or power.

prsn41ife, i am not going to buy into if he is greek or not, its clearly provocative and beside the point

Here is a tip if you really feel like talking about what he was, go to the Ancient Mediterranean and Europe and discuss there, i know many greeks and others that would love to talk to you

Quote:
"Alexander didnt free anything, infact, he conquered all of greece by force"
Ok, every differnt greek city/state wanted to either be a master or have no master. So nothing new about the use of force,  makedonian supremacy was notable only because they did it better than the spartans, athenians or any other. BTW phillip did most of the work, so your wrong about alexander's part here, unless you think thebes is 'all of greece'.

But you reminded me of another good point, he kept the greeks unified while out campaigning. If you know the greeks, this is no easy task, need a firm hand to keep them from squabbling. thanks

" he did not liberate anyone and he sure as hell didnt set off on his campaign to liberate anyone."
Well the ionians or the egyptians didnt want to be under persian control i would say they were liberated. Persia, and examples, like Tyre were conquered becuase they didnt want him there. So it depends on what way you look at the same action.

"The decisive moment was the aftermath of the battle of Issus, when he refused to accept Darius' peace offer and proclaimed himself king of Asia. Until then, he had been the liberator of the Greek towns in Asia, from now on, his aims were higher: he became a conqueror"source

"and you say he didnt attempt to destroy persian culture, that is because he couldnt!"
Is that a fact or your opinion? do you know anything about his attitude towards persians or any other non-greeks, or are you just assuming?

He tried to a persian king to persian and a greek king to greeks. If he did it well or if this was a smart choice, is debatable. But this is a very different mindset than a 'genghi khan' type dont you think?

" Although Alexander's policy to appease the Iranian population was sincere, it was doomed. He tried to be the kind of king the Persians wanted, but at too many occasions, he did not understand Persian behavior, and what trust he created, could be destroyed by one inconsiderate act."source



Edited by Leonidas

Some remarks of how ancient Persians look the ancient Macedonians if were Greeks or not

1-In the Plateans battle , Mardonios put the Greek allies in the right side of his army formation. Composed of Macedonians, Biotians, Locrians, Focians,Malians and Thessalians. The given informations are from Herodotus. The reasons were obvious.

2- The ancient Persians had three names reagrding the residents of  their Skudra.

"Saka paradraya" , probably Getes

"Skudra", the Thracians

and "Yauna takabara" that called the Ionians had a hat that like with a shild. Like the Alexander I as appeared in ancient coins of 478 B.C.

 

 

Originally posted by prsn41ife ancient greeks considered macedonians barbarians. they did not consider them as greek,

Wrong! Barbarian had also cultural meaning except ethnological. Cultural meaning about uncivilised greek tribes who were believed to have an inferior culture compared with the general hellenic civilization and a bit better culture compared with Non-Greeks. In the same category were also other northern greek tribes except Macedonians.

that is why macedonia was never involved in any of greece's internal affairs.

Wrong again... Macedonians were involved in Greece's internal affairs. We had participation in Olympic games and other festivals like "Hetaireidia", "Apellaia" and some more. They were taking part in Delphic Amphictyonies where only greeks could take part, etc.

that is why thebes, corinth, sparta, and athens were the only major powers of greece, macedon was never listed back them because they were not considered greek.

Another baseless claim. Quite a number of Greek states and entities did not appear in the first stages of classical ages. Macedonia should be seen as one of the last stages of the primary development of the Greek world. Honestly if you are about to claim something, at least present a rational argument.

the macedonians of that time resemble turkey today, they changed their language, culture, political system, and religion (well, turkey didnt change their political and religion, but you know what im saying) so that they could be considered something else.  the macedonians wanted to be considered greek and tried to be accepted, but they never were, until of course today.

Totally irrelevant analogy but it doesnt surprise me anymore. Anyway this goes too far and the topic wasnt written to turn it into another "who were ancient Macedonians" topic.

prsn41ife wrote:
"and when i meant that alexander conquered greece i menat that he crushed the revolts after his father died, like in thebes."
ok write what you mean then people can understand what you mean.

"and alexander was on the march far too long to be any great king as you describe him as."
i didnt describe him as a 'great king', but argue for balance when talking about  him, and yes he was untested as a ruler which makes your criticisms even less relevant. Im talking about examples of his leadership as hints of what type of ruler he was (or was trying to be), you make blanket statements without considering the evidence or providing any.

". you are contradicting yourself! "
No your assumption on macedions being foreign has ment you dont see the diffference. No greek wants to be under anyone, hence why the fought each other all the time, but they certainly dont want barbarians as their masters. That is a different league.  He was remembered as a liberator of the hellinic world in that sense. macedonian supremacy should be seen with and compared to athenian or spartan sumpremacy, control from within the hellnic world, there is no comparison to outside control and foreign domination.


 


Edited by Leonidas

LOL you are now trying to accredit our culture to the spread of hellenism. I doubt, Iran has been a center of civilization longer than Greece.

Alexander did not try to bring "different styles of learning" he wanted hellenistic thought to be the ONLY type of thought. That is why he destroyed other cultures, unlike Cyrus who accepted them into his cosmopolitan empire.

Originally posted by prsn41ife    but i do admit that the egyptians actually liked the fact that he came and did look at him as a liberator but other than that (as the revolt in thebes showed) no one else felt liberated, they just went from the control of the persian empire to the control of the macedonian empire.

You have no clue what you are talking about. In the Greek cities of Asia Minor, Alexander enjoyed on the whole an enthusiastic reception with the exception of oligarchic Miletus. For example, in the cities of Ephesus and Priene the reception of Alexander was overwhelming and certainly he was welcomed as liberator. The Greeks of Asia were worshiping Alexander as a god as a recognition of being a benefactor and liberating them from Persian rule.