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.

ancient greeks considered macedonians barbarians. they did not consider them as greek, that is why macedonia was never involved in any of greece's internal affairs. 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.

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 ofcourse today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My friend pren41ife I think that your quote for the participation or not of Macedonians is wrong. And I will explain to you step by step

The royal house of Sparta (Herodotus VII, 204), and the royal house of Macedonia both claimed descent from Heracles (Hercules).

-------------

Is no one going to mention the spread of Hellenism? This was huge in the east, and some of the greatest places of thinking were around because of that. This "barbarian" brought different styles of learning, but you tend to forget this.

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.

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.

You are wrong Agis. Greeks have in their vocabylary the "igemon of Greece" that translate in "leader of Greeks" and mentioned many times in the ancient inscriptions specially in the Demosthenis speeches that who must rule the Greeks.

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"

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

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.

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.

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.

Very vague term. By saying fusion of Oriental though he means eastern but the author is not specific. WHAT TYPE OF ORIENTAL IS BEING MIXED??

Hmm..well it couldn't have been from China, so that excludes Taoism and Buddhism. Likewise I certainly dont think Hellenism mixed with Zoroastrianism or any Iranian thought. He is mostly referring to the peoples of Asia Minor or Anatolia, who were seen as Oriental by Greeks. But these ppl were of Greek origin anyway. And a little bit of Jewish thought most likely. But these were minor anyway and were like the Greek Hellenistic ideas anyway. Alexander was a big east meets west guy rather a west rules all guy.

If u dont believe me check out this clip from this page...

"Hellenism (or Hellenization): the official and unofficial promotion of supposed Greek ideals in the organization of personal life and civic accomplishment."

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme04.htm - http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lec tures/wphil_theme04.htm

The promotion of Greek ideals, not a balanced fusion of ideals. The brought paganism back into Iran, they did accept even some of Iran's ideal, the goal of Alexander was clear, kill Persians and steal their wives until the land eventually became bastardized.

and u forgot Genghis Khan also raped ppl and tried to spread his ppl and bastardize other ppl (today .5% of ppl, or 16 million ppl are descendants of Genghis Khan!!! and that's just from y-chromosome, probably even more if u studied mtDNA)

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 b)to spread Greek culture by allowing Greeks to settle in eastern lands but not allow easterners to settle in Greece. Alexander's systematic killing of Persians and destruction of their culture makes me wanna do some serious stuff to him. But I guess I can't cuz the moderators here are worse than then KGB.

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 http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander14.html#satraps - above that Alexander had already started a policy to appoint Europeans as satraps."
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander15.html - link

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/7e/students/outlines/ch04.html - 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.

Originally posted by Leonidas 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.

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.

tell me how genghis khan and alexander differ? they do not differ at all, they both killed lots of people, unlike cyrus, who was merciful. remember that this is a cyrus vs. alexander thread, not persia vs. greek thread.

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?

PrznKonectoid to hitler, so yes please stay on track.

Wrong again! Macedonian kings during Greco-Persian wars acted like real diplomats changing sides whenever occasions were favourable. Alexander I had contributed to Athens the necessary lumber for building a fleet...the one who shattered the Persian fleet in Salamis. Thats why he got the title of proksenos from Atheneans as a recognition for his services. While he was showing a face to Persians of a vassal leader he was sending secret messages to Greeks informing them about the movements of Persian army. Furthermore during the get-away of Persian army, Alexander got the chance and attacked to the persians who were in the place called Nine roads. His victory was impressive and he dedicated to Delphi and Olympia golden statues as "the first plunder from Medians".

 A hint - Alexander I is known in history as Alexander the "Philhellene". I will let you wonder why.

@ 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.

Hey i'm a romanophile too, doesn't mean my arguments wouldn't be emotionally charged or biased.

i dont think that you understand that this is a cyrus vs. alexander thread.

there is no way that alexander can match up to cyrus in this context, this is all that im saying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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'.)

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 http://www.livius.org/he-hg/hephaestion/hephaestion.htm - Hephaestion died in Ecbatana. The king was shocked, and as a consolation, he massacred the http://www.livius.org/k/kassites/kassites.html - 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 http://www.livius.org/arl-arz/arrian/arrian.htm - 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 http://www.livius.org/a/pakistan/kabul/cophen.html - Kabul and http://www.livius.org/a/pakistan/swat/soastus.html - 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, http://www.livius.org/ro-rz/roxane/roxane.htm - 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 - 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.

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

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 - 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).

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 - 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 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.

"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)."

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.

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!

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.