Cyrus the Great vs Alexander

Sparta was named as the "Hegemon" of the Pelloponesian alliance and Philip was named Hegemon of Greece by the Korinthian League, a title that his son Alexander had inherited.

These are the most prominent cases where the title was used in the Hellenic world, but there were other cases of lesser importance, where a small coalition of cities would ally for a war period and the most powerfull amongst them would assume the title of "Hegemon", which literally means "Leader"

Originally posted by strategos Originally posted by PrznKonectoid 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. Center of civilization? Can you expand on this more? I think Mesopotamia was more center than Persia.  Alexander is not a destroyer of cultures, Hellenism combined the best of Eastern culture with Greek culture. If this is destorying than I am not sure you are right. Cyrus would of been proud that his empire was not just overrun by simple heathens, and that good men had inherited it.

Persia was just as much a center of civilization as Babylon. The only difference was that Mesopotamia had a much higher population. Persia was always populated by villages and cities but nothing on the size of Babylon. Yet they have always been civilized from the days of Elam to Cyrus and beyond.

I doubt Cyrus the great "would have been proud" that Alexander the great slaughtered so many Persian men, women, and children, that his men raped ppl, and burnt Persian cities.

And Hellenism is not a combination of east and west. Hellenism was the root of western culture. Iran's philosophy as a peoples began far before the Hellenic invasion. From the times when nomadic peoples inhabited the plateau, from their motifs and artwork, and writings like the Avesta, it is obvious that Iranians tried to figure out their place in the world and the mystery of life. I hate this Hellenic monopoly on everything intellectual. Hellenic ppls did not invent everything as they'd like to think.

Alexander wanted Hellenism to overtake Iranian culture, not to enhance. He was tutored by Aristotle and believed his culture to be supreme.

Anyhow most Hellenism in Iran was kicked out when the Parthians saved our peoples and reestablished our role as an independent peoples

Edited by PrznKonectoid

Originally posted by PrznKonectoid Originally posted by strategos Originally posted by PrznKonectoid 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. Center of civilization? Can you expand on this more? I think Mesopotamia was more center than Persia.  Alexander is not a destroyer of cultures, Hellenism combined the best of Eastern culture with Greek culture. If this is destorying than I am not sure you are right. Cyrus would of been proud that his empire was not just overrun by simple heathens, and that good men had inherited it. Persia was just as much a center of civilization as Babylon. The only difference was that Mesopotamia had a much higher population. Persia was always populated by villages and cities but nothing on the size of Babylon. Yet they have always been civilized from the days of Elam to Cyrus and beyond. I doubt Cyrus the great "would have been proud" that Alexander the great slaughtered so many Persian men, women, and children, that his men raped ppl, and burnt Persian cities. Your right, he would not of been proud of a such a huge number of Persians being slaughtered by such smaller number of Greeks, and the blunders of the superior Persian Generals. Perhaps they should of stayed in Asia where it was safe.. And Hellenism is not a combination of east and west. Hellenism was the root of western culture. Iran's philosophy as a peoples began far before the Hellenic invasion. From the times when nomadic peoples inhabited the plateau, from their motifs and artwork, and writings like the Avesta, it is obvious that Iranians tried to figure out their place in the world and the mystery of life. I hate this Hellenic monopoly on everything intellectual. Hellenic ppls did not invent everything as they'd like to think. Alexander wanted Hellenism to overtake Iranian culture, not to enhance. He was tutored by Aristotle and believed his culture to be supreme. Many people at these times did think their culture was supreme to others. Helenism IS a combination of both, were do you get your source that it is not? Anyhow most Hellenism in Iran was kicked out when the Parthians saved our peoples and reestablished our role as an independent peoples

 

Hellenism

Wikipedia:

The term Hellenistic (derived from Ἕ�˦˦Ǧ� H��ll��n, the Greeks' traditional self-described ethnic name) was established by the German historian Johann Gustav Droysen to refer to the spreading of Greek culture over the non-Greek peoples that were conquered by Alexander the Great. According to Droysen, the Hellenistic civilisation was a fusion of Greek and Oriental culture that eventually gave Christianity the opportunity to flourish. The main cultural centers expanded from mainland Greece, to Pergamon, Rhodes, Antioch and Alexandria.

 

 

Originally posted by strategos Originally posted by prsn41ife how can anyone say that the greeks advanced asia's culture through hellenism.?!  asia has always been more advance in the west, even during the roman empire. the eastern provinces of rome were the richest and most civilised! persia gained nothing from hellenism. and how can one army of 30000 men who are all uneducated soldiers contribute culturally to an older culture with population in the millions! alexander was nothing more than a brutal conquerer like genghis khan. Your compare Alexander to genghis khan? Haha, good history book you studied from. I'm sorry he put an end to the persians, but when he has practically slaves as troops from the various provinces you cannot expect much more...

 

how did alexander put an end to the persians? if you know anything then you know that the persians came back stronger than ever, matched the strength of the roman empire, recounqered all of the middle east, besieged byzantium, etc....

what did greece do after alexander, o wait, they got conquered and were apart of history till recently. LOL, so tell me who came to an end?

 

and yes, i compare alexander to genghis khan for these reasons:

1. both were great leaders, used small armies to defeat larger forces.

2. both were brutal.

3. both died from non military causes.

4. both conquered persians.

now tell me in what way these to people differ, alexander did nothing but conquer, just like genghis.

Edited by prsn41ife

strategos if you will allow me.

prsn41ife wrote:
"1. both were great leaders, used small armies to defeat larger forces."
yes but there are so many other leaders that did this, so why choose ghengis khan? very simplistic

"2. both were brutal."
That is subjective statement and description. Alexander was attacking and conquering a hellenic threat. Ghengis attacked people that had nothing to do with him. Alexander fought as ruthlessly as the whole conflict was fought. or did persian conquer others just for their benefit?
agian vague and simplistic

"3. both died from non military causes."
. So do most people including generals/leaders. Alexander died young and largly untested as a ruler of an empire. Ghengis was how old?
bad comparison.

"4. both conquered persians."
Ah huh, the real reason why you put them together, they beat the crap out of persians so they both must be same; uneducated good for nothing rulers that had no culture but alas where great generals. I think you can truelly leave alexander out of that group.


Edited by Leonidas

I. Alexander and the great crusade to conquer Asia Minor 
A. Alexander the King
    1.The son of King Philip, Alexander vowed to conquer Persia, in retribution  for its invasion of Greece.
    2.Alexander became king in 336 B.C. and invaded Asia Minor in 334 B.C.
    3.By 330 B.C., he had defeated the Persians and moved on to conquer the rest of Asia..
    4.He then set out to conquer India.

I. Alexander's legacy
A. Alexander became a legend in his own time.
   1. Historians still disagree over his character.
   2. Some records show him as a violent and savage person.
   3.The "philosopher-king" interpretation of Alexander is based on a    misunderstanding of his intentions at a banquet in 324 B.C.
   4.Throughout these campaigns he founded new cities and military colonies.
   5.The practical result of his actions was to open the East to Hellenism.

B. The political legacy
   1.After his death in 323 B.C., Alexander's empire was divided among four  dynasties: the Antigonids, the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, and the Pergamenes; a kingdom of Bactria was founded in the far northeast.
   2.In Greece the polis system was replaced by leagues of citystates.
   3.The Hellenistic world was politically fragmented and constantly at war

C. The cultural legacy of Alexander
   1.The colonies founded by Alexander and his successors brought many  Greeks into Asia, thereby bringing East and West together; this culture is called Hellenism.
   2.Over 70 cities were founded by Alexander, and his successors established at least 250 colonies--transforming the Mediterranean basin into a Greekspeaking region.
   3.The newly discovered Hellenistic city of Ay Khanoum is an example of Greek influence--far away from Greece.
   4.Alexander's empire spread Greek culture as far east as India.
   5.Hellenism became a common bond for the Mediterranean.

IIIThe spread of Hellenism
A.Cities and kingdoms of the Hellenistic age

    1.The creation of new kingdoms accompanied the resurgence of  monarchy; this was a method of uniting diverse peoples--often linking the ruler with the gods.
    2.The new cities were not politically independent (or sovereign) but rather a part of a kingdom.
    3.Legal and social inequality existed in the Hellenistic city; Greeks had greater rights and thus formed an elite.
    4.The city was fully the possession of the king.
    5.The city of Pergamum is an example of an old city that was transformed by new Greek rulers--with gymnasia, baths, a library, and even a synagogue for Jews.
A.The Hellenistic kings were frequently at war as they attempted to solidify their kingdoms and gain the loyalty of subjects.
B.The Hellenistic city was the basic social and political unit in the Hellenistic East and the foundation on which later Roman and Christian cultures were established.

IV. The Greeks and the opening of the East    A.The Hellenistic cities provided a new military and bureaucratic class of Greeks with important jobs and chances for advancement.
    1.Greeks were able to dominate other professions, including the arts.
    2.Greek buildings were built and entirely new cities were laid out.
    3.New opportunities opened for women--including the medical profession--but most poor women were illiterate.
    4.In Sparta women owned two-fifths of the land.
    5.Overall, Greek immigrants were not loyal to their monarchs.
    6.Professional Hellenistic soldiers were not loyal to their employers.
    7.The Hellenistic world was kept going only as long as new Greek immigrants were available to fill the professional/cultural ranks.

V. Greeks and Easterners: the Hellenistic cities became centers of Hellenism  A.The spread of Greek culture was uneven, being stronger in the Mediterranean than in the Far East--and stronger in cities than in rural areas.
  B.A GrecoEgyptian culture evolved slowly in Egypt under the Ptolemies.
  C.Under the Seleucid kings, Greek and Eastern culture merged in Asia Minor.
  D.Most Easterners took only the external trappings of Greek culture, such as the Greek dialect called koine, while retaining their own way of life.
  E.Hellenism and the Jews
     1.The Greeks allowed the Jews political and religious freedom through a political organization called the politeuma.
     2.Hellenistic Greeks usually did not wish to interfere with anyone's religion.
     3.Despite adoption of some Hellenistic culture, Jews remained Hebrew at heart.

VI.The economic scope of the Hellenistic world   
    A.Commerce
       1.Alexander's conquests brought the East and the West together for trade.
       2.Overland trade to India was conducted by caravan.
         a.Silk, tea, and other luxuries came by way of two camel caravan routes--the northern Dura route and the southern Arabia route.
         b.In return, Mediterranean people traded manufactured goods    (weapons, cloth, etc.) and wine and oil.
         c.Ideas passed along these routes.
         d.The Greek cities depended on seaborne trade (largely from Egypt) for grain.
    3.The slave trade and slavery were important to the Hellenistic economy.
   B.Industry
      1.Cheap labor left no incentive to invent machinery.
      2.Labor in the gold, silver, and iron mines was harsh; many workers were political prisoners and slaves.
      3.Important changes in pottery style took place, but production methods remained unchanged.
   C.Agriculture
     1.The Ptolemies made advances in seed development; much of the royal  revenue was derived from agriculture.
     2.The Ptolemies also made strides in irrigating the land, partly because of their strong central government.

VII. Hellenistic intellectual advances
    A.Religion in the Hellenistic world
       1.The Greek religious cults centered on the Olympian gods.
          a.The cults, consisting mainly of rituals, did not fill the religious needs of the people.
          b.But many people turned to a belief in Tyche (fate or chance).
       2.Mystery religions grew up to fill emotional and ethical needs.
         a.These religions promised life for the soul after death and union with a god who had himself risen from the dead.
         b.Isis was the most important goddess of the new mystery cults.
         c.Her priests claimed that she had founded law and literature, and was the goddess of marriage and childbirth. She promised to save the souls of her believers.

VIII. Philosophy and people
    A.Common people became interested in philosophy, because of the decline of the polis, the decline of religion, and increased mobility, all of which left people in need for something permanent.
          1.The new philosophies taught that people could be truly happy only when they rejected the world and focused their attention on enduring things.
          2.The Epicureans taught that pleasure was the chief good and advocated political passivity.
          3.The Stoics stressed the unity of man and universe and resignation to one's duty.
              a.Zeno made Stoicism the most popular Hellenistic philosophy.
              b.Participation in worldly affairs was encouraged, but leading a virtuous life was most important.
              c.The Stoic concept of natural law--one law for all people--was of great importance, particularly later in Rome.

IX. Hellenistic science
     A.Aristarchus developed the heliocentric theory of the universe, although Aristotle's earthcentered view remained dominant.
     B.Euclid compiled a textbook on geometry.
     C.Archimedes, an inventor and theoretician, sketched out basic principles of mechanics.
     D.Eratosthenes made advances in mathematics and geography--and was the head of a great museum.
     E.Theophrastos founded the study of botany.

X. Hellenistic medicine
     AThe Dogmatic school of medicine, under Herophilus and Erasistratus, used vivisection and dissection to gain knowledge of the body, including the nervous system.
     B.The Empiric school stressed observation and the use of medicine and drugs, including opium.
     C.Many quacks did untold harm, but they were popular.

From http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mckay/western_society/7 e/students/outlines/ch04.html

Now, before making  - again - irrelevant analogies think twice about all these.

"reply to #2. macedonia was either an ally or neutral in both of the persian greek wars. therefore, you saying that he wanted to get rid of a "hellenic threat" is wrong."
you cant be seroius. sparta was freindly at one time, then athens. basically the persians couldnt fight the greeks head on, so they played them. alleigances came and went depending if it suited the particular parties in their own wars and interests. So that doesnt mean anything. Please know something about that history before you type about it.

"tell me how genghis khan and alexander differ?
ok if you havent worked it out, the majority here are way smarter than;
'genghis khan rode a horse and alexander rode a horse they must be alike' type of logic.
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?

of the top of my head but anyhow, can you see how stupid such a comparison is...

who was merciful. remember that this is a cyrus vs. alexander thread,
ok, youve compared him to ghengis so far and PrznKonectoid to hitler, so yes please stay on track.

Now ive already written that this is a unfair comparison. like comparing pericles to xerxes. BTW that is more relevant to the discussion, than your over the top comparisons and statements.

Main issue
Cyrus lived on as a ruler after the conquering phase, alexander died young and therefore with all of the ??  about him and his ability, how can you judge him fairly?

Angles you could compare him
So if you are genuine about the comparison you can only judge them as conquerors, or compare the concepts of cyrus human rights ideas to alexanders fusion of cultures idea.

not persia vs. greek thread."
no this is not a persian vs greek thing in my mind. You may see things in such a way, hence explaining your inability to see history outside your own ethnic pride.

I was argueing for proper context to the history and balance in the discussion, i originly stated i dont like alexander. some people pointed out their opinions and i backed my logic up with an example and further explainations, sources.

The way everyone was talking about perspolis at the start of all of this is; like the germans bitching about dresden and not mentioning the london bombings. you dont have to be a greek to see the unfairness in such criticisms, even if personlly you dont agree with the destruction. (which is my personal veiw)



Edited by Leonidas

@ leonidas: for your information, my favorite empire is the roman empire, then the persian empire, so there is no ethnic pride in my argument.

you keep saying how good alexander was but you never say what he did. tell me exactly what he did besides conquer and kill. atleast cyrus did other things than just conquer.

cyrus wins this hands down, there shouldnt even be a comparison.

prsn41ife wrote:
"you keep saying how good alexander was but you never say what he did."
where did i say this he was good let alone 'keep saying' this? your interpretation of my position and what ive said is as  flawed as your interpretation of alexander.
"but you never say what he did. tell me exactly what he did besides conquer and kill"
prsn41ife, i think evrything your asking for has already been answred and to save this thing from going round in circles, re-read the thread.

ill use an example.
you said
"atleast cyrus did other things than just conquer."
ive already said
"Main issue
Cyrus lived on as a ruler after the conquering phase, alexander died young and therefore with all of the ??  about him and his ability, how can you judge him fairly?"
 i then suggest ways to compare them fairly, a way to move forward...
"you can only judge them as conquerors, or compare the concepts of cyrus human rights ideas to alexanders fusion of cultures idea. "

so please move forward, if you dont understand my position, ask for clarification and dont assume.

Originally posted by prsn41ife how can anyone say that the greeks advanced asia's culture through hellenism.?!  asia has always been more advance in the west, even during the roman empire. the eastern provinces of rome were the richest and most civilised! persia gained nothing from hellenism. and how can one army of 30000 men who are all uneducated soldiers contribute culturally to an older culture with population in the millions! alexander was nothing more than a brutal conquerer like genghis khan.

I second this my friend, I am a new member and I am sorry about my short comment.