Cyrus the Great vs Alexander

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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..

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

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.

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.

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 Cyrus�s 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.

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.

"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)."

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!