Alexander the Great turned back during his battle?

Was it b/c he had already conquered Darius?

This is a very inteligent thread...

HI BG!! It's long time I havn't see You!! I think this whole thread is some kind of mistake... strange questions and no explanations... But if such subject had been raised we can maybe find some better point to discuss?? For example Alexandrian excavations under... water. Has anyone heard about it?? here are very nice links to mure information about it:

http://baheyeldin.com/egypt/alexandria-egypt-archeology.html - http://baheyeldin.com/egypt/alexandria-egypt-archeology.html

No...

And that's not what I was talking about. Alexander was only a great conqueror, nothing more. He is no great man, in anything else. He slaughtered thousands upon thousands of people. Ransacked many parts of India that he managed to invade and devesated the Iranian peoples with his attacks on their culture and religion.

Sorry, Dari, I wasn't referring to you.  I was referring to the original poster.

Good to see you again, too, Maciek!  The ranks of Alexander haters were swelling without anyone to help me hold them back!

He was a lot more than that. It's hard to understand what he did with our modern-day mindset but I'll list a few in brief (and yes ok, I'll acknowledge that these are important mainly for the "western" world but they ultimately affected the entire globe).

So Alexander:

• Revolutionized the way war was being fought (with the help of his father Philippos). The idea of heavy infantry acting as anvil that holds the enemy front and heavy cavalry acting as hammer giving the decisive strike was unique. Moreover the combination of arms he employed (heavy and psiloi troops plus siege engineers) and raw model logistics (with the exception of the Gedrosia incident)
• He unified almost the entire known world (ok, from a "western" point of view. Up till then Greeks knew (in detail) only as far as Persepolis and perhaps a bit further to the edge of India. Greek maps after Alexander show as far as Indochina and the mapping of the Persian golf coast opened trade routes between Egypt and India.
• Greek art, literature and architecture created a common culture as far as India and affected local cultures (e.g. Ghandara art). Moreover, Greek engineers and scientists improved greatly agricultural methods. Egypt, prior to the Ptolemies was not even able to feed it's own population. The new methods rendered Egypt as the breadbasket of Europe (much to Rome's benefit in the end)
• Huge amount of Persian gold were taken from the state coffers where it laid idle and thrown into circulation. The commerce boom that ensued was unprecedented in world history.

• Laid the way for the creation of the Roman empire and, ultimately, for the spread of Christianism.

I'm sure there're many more, but these are the ones I can think of right now...

Incorrect, it did outlive Alexander(for instance, Pyrrhus modeled his army after Alexanders').  The latter day Macedonian armies that failed so miserably against Rome failed becuase they had reverted back to the pre-Phillipos tactic of using the phalanx of the main arm, due to a lack of cavalry that was able to be fielded. 

Incorrect, the tactics Alexander used did outlive him(for example, Pyrrhus modlede his army and tactics after Alexanders').  However, the reverting back to the old usage of the phalanx as the main army occurred due to later day Macedonian armies not being able to field the amount of cavalry Alexander had.

"Revolutionized the way war was being fought (with the help of his father Philippos). The idea of heavy infantry acting as anvil that holds the enemy front and heavy cavalry acting as hammer giving the decisive strike was unique. Moreover the combination of arms he employed (heavy and psiloi troops plus siege engineers) and raw model logistics (with the exception of the Gedrosia incident) "

This claim has little basis,  this warfare only became the dominant fighting in the middle east and greece for a century or so until the Romans defeated them all with its more flexible legion which had a complete different different tactic. And how exactly are modern warfare effected by this?

The Romans have defeated a tottaly different army organization where the phalangites were used as attacking force rather than the "anvil" that I described above. Absolutelly no comparison between Philip's/Alexander's army and the army that was defeated by the Romans.

Napoleon and Frederich mentioned Alexander as the rawmodel they used for their battlefield innovations.

"The Romans have defeated a tottaly different army organization where the phalangites were used as attacking force rather than the "anvil" that I described above. Absolutelly no comparison between Philip's/Alexander's army and the army that was defeated by the Romans."

That was not my point, obviously, it shows that his tactic did not pass on and outlive him, thus it has little affect on military strategy of the future.

"Napoleon and Frederich mentioned Alexander as the rawmodel they used for their battlefield innovations. "

Napoleon mentioned a lot of commanders he copied, and Alexander was not the most important one, and how exactly did Napoleon adopt Alexander's organization and tactic? Learning some of his maneuvre does not "revolutionize" war.

Alexanders' tactics did outlive him. The extensive use of cavalry and skirmishers were implimented into Greek armies of later stage you see. Before him, the Greek armies were mainly made up of hoplites with skirmishers etc as only secondary troops, with few exceptions... (the island battle where Athenian mercenary Peltasts murdered Spartan hoplites...)

My response to warhead's last post appeared a few posts up due to yesterday's glitch. But I'll go ahead and post it again for an easier access:

Incorrect, the tactics Alexander used did outlive him(for example, Pyrrhus modlede his army and tactics after Alexanders').  However, the reverting back to the old usage of the phalanx as the main army occurred due to later day Macedonian armies not being able to field the amount of cavalry Alexander had.

Warhead, you're playing with words just for the sake of argument.

As Lannes correctly noticed, the later Greek armies were not able (for a number of reasons) to field effective cavalry units (not in quantity nor in quality). They relied once again in infantry, and lost.

However, the lesson is recorded in history and Alexander's tactics and innovations (always being aggressive, seizing the opportunity, mobility vs. numbers, importance of siege train, state of the art logistics service etc) were examined and employed throughout history. Even the defeat of the later armies was an important lesson because it has shown how correct Alexander was when he employed a combination of arms.

Now, we can stay here and discuss untill the cows come home, but that will not change the truth. He was a military genius able to overcome a series of obstacles and win all battles and sieges he undertook and that's why we continue to debate about him even today.

I'm not playing with any word, I said from the begining, the tactic of his army was not continued during Rome's time and thats a fact.

"However, the lesson is recorded in history and Alexander's tactics and innovations (always being aggressive, seizing the opportunity, mobility vs. numbers, importance of siege train, state of the art logistics service etc) were examined and employed throughout history. Even the defeat of the later armies was an important lesson because it has shown how correct Alexander was when he employed a combination of arms."

I still want examples on what field deployment is based on his tactic, so far you haven't gave me any, all you've said is that people like Napoleon and Frederick examined his military. But they also examined many others, and none of them could be said to have greatly affected future military thoughts. Been aggressive and seizing opportunity is something that all good generals do with instinct, not learned. Mobility verse numbers has always been the tactic of central asia way before Alexander, and the later European learned more of that from steppe people like turks than Alexander. I have not seen anything regarding siege train from later European armies been associated with Alexander, in fact the medieval trebuchet's design is very different in nature with the torsion type that the ancient Greeks used. As for combination of arms, similarly, I have not seen solid record that later armies actually adopted from him rather than figuring it out themselves.

Stick to something.  Here's the post I responded to:

So, to answer your question, you saying his tactic didn't outlive him is what was incorrect. 

Was the long-lanced pikemen of 16th century Europe an adoptation of Macedonian tactics? Or was it just a coinicidence that this tactic was newly invented?

Not sue if he was just at the right place at the right time encountering a weak emperor or he had some special military talent. Regardless, Hitler proved much more in this area, after all he defeated multiple countries and Alexander only defeated one (in multiple battles). Hitler is not considered to be anyone special why should Alexander be.

Come on, this is a history forum I think we all know better. This statement would be good for one of these move fan sites for people living in their fantasies. All the area he captured was already part of the Persian/Iranian empire. I fact his empire was smaller in area than the original Persian empire even if you include the small part of the Greece he added.

Cultural an d scientific exchange does not require conquest, and you make it sound like Greeks were ahead of the world at that time. Not sure if that is true

Nice spin. You mean he was a good pirate. Even if what you say is true that was not planned by him. He was after stealing someone else's gold not stimulating the economy

Not trying to say the Christianity is a good thing or bad, but the religion of people he defeated (Zoroastrianism), had a lot ( and I mean a lot) in common with Christianity and his religion had nothing to do with Christianity. Where that commonality comes from is source of another discussion, but if you think Christianity is a good thing you should go thank the ancient Persians for that

I can..... 

Actually Hitler's generals are praised for his early victories and in the end Hitler LOST the war, remember? Moreover Hitler did not lead the Nazi armies. However even if I find your comparison a bit unappropriate I have to say that if Hitler had won the war we would probably today praize him as a genius and we would have been taght that in school.

So what? He conquered every part by winning different battles. Following your logic, if one would conquer the Roman empire that would be nothing special since he would have conquered nothing but "one country"!

True for the first part, but you have to admit that conquest and unification of Greek and Middle Eastern world accelerated this exchange. Secong part, I think that yes, Greeks were ahead of the rest of the world at the time (but I might be a bit biased on that )

No, I mean that instead of keeping the gold idle in the treasury, he minted it and put it to circulation. Greek bank (type of) institutions were established in the East and commerce boomed as a consequece of his actions. So it's not more what you do with the riches that you loot. He put useless gold into good use.

I personally think that Christianity (and religion in general) is an insult on the face of humanity but that's not our topic here. Yes, Christianity was greatly influenced by Judaism, Zoroastrians as well as other local religions of parts of the Roman empire.

I don't think that you can put Alexander and his actions in the frame of modern-day politics. I judge them based on the conditions of his era. (moreover, since I'm also Greek I must admit that I'm -probably- a bit biased towards Alexander )

What sets us apart from the likes of Alexander's Macedon and Darius's Persia is the new level of consciousness about human rights and reasons not to wage war...they didn't know any better.

Aaaa, interesting point. But these two were essentialy different in the sense that the first, although not a Democracy, had the sence of civil liberties that are valued even today while the second one was an absolute monarchy where the Great King was "the Alpha and the Omega" and owed everything in his domain even the lives of his subjects. (please don't bring the example of Cleitus to dispute me, I'll give him the excuse that Alexander was drunk and that he later has shown great remorse :-)

It's not that they didn't know any better, it was just that war was their way.

Ancients didn't seem to take the same humanist view that so many people in modern times like to take, though that is not to say they didn't realize in full what disasters war could cause.

 You have picked an interesting name for someone who thinks Christianity is an insult on the face humanity Yiannis

Although I cannot disagree with most of the issues that you point out, I can disagree with the last one. Greek culture had the element that men who performed extraordinary deeds (must) be more than men. The concept of demi-Gog (Theseus, Jason, Hercules) was devised for that purpose. So Alexander, the conquer of the greatest empire on earth must have been "more than human". Orators in Athens and elsewhere were already fostering this idea (paid by Alexander? maybe but the idea was there).

So it was not just Alexander's megalomania but also a political tool that could unite the Greek world in the whole Medditeranean basin.

That was the sperm that created Roman deification of Emperors...

I'm aware of the loans that Greeks and Egyptians had from Mesopotamia and between them. For example look at the "Kouros" and "Kore" type of statues. Their origin is disntingtly Egyptian. Imobile, rough figures always with the hands glued to the side and one foot projecting infrond of the other. That was the Egyptian style for milleniums and was brought over to Greece as well. Look at waht has happened to this style within less than a hundered years after it was introduced to Greece. It evolved to one of the best schools of sculpture that ever existed!

Mathematics were also introduced from Mesopotamia and geometry from Egypt where it was usefull to calculate the fields. Look how it evolved by the Greek mathematicians to calculate the perimeter of the Earth almost exactly, the movements of the planets, the distance  between earth and moon etc...

It's no accident that Physics, Biology, Mathematics, Geometry etc are Greek words. It's not because the Greeks have invented them, far from it, it's because they have evolved them almost to modern day standards and they have set the basis on which modern scientific research is based upon.

No, I'm not overlooking other civilization's achievement. I'm just proud about ours (plus I'm not very familiar with other countries achievements so I can't speak of them that often)

akis, why are you so rough on Alexander? Aren't 2500 years enough to forget and forgive? I mean, Yiannis has forgiven the Turks who massacred his fellow countrymen even 50 years ago (the Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos massacres, if you are wondering) why can't you forgive something that happened 2500 years ago?

Alexander was a conqueror and as such had his bad moments. Tyre was one of those,Persepolis was another and several less known incidents in the depths of Asia are more. But he didn't perform genocide, nor was he intolerant or anything close. Had he lived on, we might've seen the first real mixture of the Greek and Persian cultures, and the first mighty fusion between the East and the West (he believed in that, even his own countrymen despised him for this) not to mention the greatest empire ever. Probably, history would be quite different.

If you are looking for genocidal conquerors, Alexandros is a wrong choice. Even the Persian performed many, many more genocides (eradicating whole cities with their population) than Alexander. And they did so much later (the mass slaughter of Christians in Kappadokia and Syria in the times just before Heraclius?). Why are you so obsessed with what Alexandros did? You thing it's that unique? Or is it just plain-old silly nationalism?

These are not universal words people in different part of world use different words to refer to these. These words are used in English and a few other European languages. Today it is more chic to be European than it is to be middle eastern but in reality Greeks were part of and at the western edge of the grater civilization that emerged toward the end of bronze age in the middle east. Greeks later on functioned as the conduit taking the know how of the old world to the western Europeans which later on got ahead of middle Easterns and Mediterraneans. 

Nah, there were a whole lot more Asians than Greeks.  The Greeks had become pretty insignificant, comparatively, in the empire by the time of his death.

You do realize that the theorem is named after the Pythagoreans because they were the first to prove the theorem, not discover it, don't you?

Which is why Xerxes burned down all of the temples in Athens   .  You do misjudge Alexander though.  He had a tendency of ultimately destroying those who resisted him and betrayed him, not that with which he didn't agree.  Persepolis was an odd example, and I can't give any good reason why he burned the city to the ground (unless the story of his drunkenness is true, which it doesn't seem to be).

No, it's not the numbers that make the difference! There were Asians serving in the army but they always had Greek commanders. Even the local satraps that were appointed to post by Alexander were soon replaced. This happened in Egypt, in the Seleucid empire and also in the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms (that lasted far less than the others).

But it's true that the flow of immigrants from Greece to Asia did not have a significant effect in population terms, the collonists simply dissapeared in the vastness of Asia and at the same time this caused serious problems in Greece proper.

However the cultural effects lasted much longer!

Touche.  They could always be replaced by Asians, though, in a tight spot.

I came across this discussion looking for an answer to a question, so I might as well ask it here. It looks as though there'd be people with views....

The question: Yes, Alexander made effective use of cavalry in winning his battles. That seems evident. However, what in rather more detail, was the way in which he used cavalry? I.e. what tactics did he use (I don't mean the 'hammer and anvil' stuff - take that as 'metatactics' or strategy)?

How were they equipped? I've seen suggestions that they carried throwing spears and javelins, with some only carrying sword and shield to fight when dismounted. Did they charge as lancers or hussars would? Did they fight horse-to-horse, or just against infantry? (If they attacked organised infantry at all.)

And how did thy do that without stirrups? I note that someone's signature here includes a picture of Alexander on horseback that, correctly, shows no stirrups.

Thanks to anyone who comes up with answers.

Good questions... here are some answers.

First of all, Alexandros deployed three types of cavalry (actually it was more than four, but the rest fall under these categories as well).

- Heavy cavalry (hetairoi and some Thessalian segments)

- Medium cavalry (southern Greeks and some Thessalian, Prodromoi cavalry)

- Light cavalry (Paeonian scouts, some southern Greeks, some other allied cavalry)

The equipment was different for every type, except on thing: none of them had stirrups (those were invented a few centuries after Alex's times).

Hetairoi cavalry wore thorax (linen with metal stripes attached, or even full metal - but that was more seldom), helm and carried in battle the renowned xyston spear (about 3 m. long) and as secondary weapon a sword called kopis or cavalry kopis (appearently there was also a infantry version). The tactical use of the hetairoi cavalry and the heavy thessalian cavalry was similar: they would fight anything, anywhere, they would even charge against organized infantry (of the Persian types, of course - charging against hoplite phalanx head on was not expected nor carried out by those marvelous cavalrymen). There is quite a controversy as to how effective they could be without stirrups, couched lance and couched saddle, when charging (like lancers). Well, the accounts we have suggest they have been used as the first actual shock cavalry in history.

The question remains though, how could they deploy shock tactics (charging en masse against cavalry and infantry irregardles) without the gear mentioned? We really don't know. But Alexander's cavalry was not the only one that used similar tactics before the invention of stirrups and couched saddle.

The Thessalian had similar equipment, but lesser cuirasses and might not've carried the kopis sword.

The southern Greeks used varied type of equipment, depending on where they came from.

The Prodromoi did not wear any kind of armor, but carried the cavalry sarissa, a shorter version of the famed extra long (up to 6 meters) pike. The cavalry version could be even four meters long.

The Paeonian and the other light cavalry were equipped with javelins and maybe a short sword and a buckler.

No other cavalry typed deployed by Alex carried any shield.

That's all I can tell you without resorting to my library.

Thanks Romano for the quick response. That's the kind of information i was looking for.

Out of period, but I ran across this picture of "Union cavalry in action at Gettysburg".  

I wondered somewhat how  far Alexander might have used 'cavalry' the way both sides did in the Civil War, as highly mobile infantry or as mounted javelin and spear throwers like mounted archers or carabinieri.

Very good, Romano.  Just a few touchy points though.  The Thessalian cavalry were probably better troops than the Hetairoi, overall.  They developed a hexagon formation to ride in that proved to be extremely effective, though difficult to deploy.  The Thessalians had it perfected and employed it well.  The Hetairoi tended to fight in a wedge.

Fighting without stirrups was extremely difficult.  It was likely that a cavalryman would get unhorsed at some point if he joined the general melee.  Generally, the cavalrymen had to hold onto the horse with both thighs and maybe one hand.  You would not hold on with your calves.  This was because if you didn't just leave the lower portion of your leg dangling then it would likely get broken or cut more easily if you bumped into something or someone hit you.  The Paeonians developed someway of better holding onto the horse with their legs so that they could free up both hands for fighting with their spear.  This was abnormal when compared to the normal one handed, overthrust of other cavalrymen.  It gave them much more power with which to strike.

The Prodromoi were not armed with sarissas.  The sarissaphoroi were, though they were probably considered a subdivison of the prodromoi, can't remember off the top of my head.  The sarissaphoroi seemed to have been a pet division of Alexander's, and their usefulness is debated.  Alexander is often depicted in the dress of a sarissaphoroi, e.g. the famous mosaic of Gaugemela, and it's thought that the sarissaphoroi were considered very dashing to be in, and it was popular to be depicted that way in paintings, much like many people used to like to be portrayed in hussar dress in paintings even though they obviously weren't hussars.

Any other questions and I'll be glad to get back to you .

Romano Nero

Good post with a lot of details. But you forgot to mention the Thracians

"none of them had stirrups (those were invented a few centuries after Alex's times). "

We do find reins mentiond in texts before Alexander was even born.

We know the word "hippodesma" that means "reins". The word for stirrups was "anaboleus" even though we do find it as you say in a later time than Alexander's we do see the verb "anaballo" used for horse mounting before him. What troubles me is how is it possible, when we know that they had chariot's as far back as Homer's Iliad, later we find chariot races as an Olympic event. So we can see that they were very well accustomed to horses if not had mastered the "art" of horse riding/races. Yet according to all sources stirrups were invented a long time after the event mentioned. Am I the only one that see's this as something that needs further research?

Him "just wanting to pray" was a pretext for submission. The temple he requested to sacrifice was the one that only Tyrian kings were allowed to. The Tyrians, by allowing him to sacrifice there, would effectively recognize Alexander as their master. It's all politics

But the Tyrians also committed sacrilege, when they slaughtered Greek prisoners and thrown their bodies over the city walls and into the sea. There wasn't any greatest sacrilege in the eyes of the Greeks, because they believed that if the body was not properly burned or buried, it would never find rest in the underworld (killing of prisoners wasn't so important as much as the refusal of burial). After that they really wanted revenge.

so you are related to ancient Macadonia? not the modern Macadonia?

because  as far as i know they are not the same people

Here we go again...

Well we know for sure that he spoke Greek, that the cities he built had (some still have) Greek names and greeks living in them, that he spread Greek culture as far as India (see Budhas in Greek chitons), that his name (same as his father, mother, friends and all the ancient Macedonians that we know of) were Greek. We also know that the vast majority of the historical borders of the Macedonian kingdom were within, today's Greek Macedonia. Further north were conquered lands such as Paeonia etc...

We also know for sure that Alexander wasn't speaking Slavic like you do, or called Aleksandr...

In any case, the discussion if the ancient Macedonians were Greek or not is ongoing on scholarly level and there're serious well-versed arguments on both sides. But there is no discussion on whether they were Hellenized at some point in history (even scholars who support the idea of ancient macedonians being different in origin than Greeks, agree thet they became Hellenized) or of you being related to the ancient Macedonians.

PS: The Athenians were Ionians, not Dorians as the Spartans.

I won't reply to that, I'll judge you to be innocent due to complete and utter ignorance on the matter. However, I'd like to let you know that your efforts to provoke arent effective on me.

Zeus and Ra are one and the same thing in Greek mind. The Greeks always made parallelisms between their gods and those of other nations, especially with the Egyptians with whom they had connections for a long time. That is why Alexander went to pay his respects to Ammon. There're temples of Ammon Ra in Greece. In any case, you could have the argument that even if Macedonians and Greeks worshiped the same gods, they were still not related etc...

My. my, my, gentlemen, with all these flames, its gotten a bit warm in here.

When I become Empress of the Universe, none of this will matter one bit because you'll all be mine.  

Just a bit of levity to try to diffuse the situation.  Thought I should mention that before the flames toast me.

Of course this does give me a perfect opportunity to show the difference between actual debate and a flame war.  Without even caring or mentioning who posted what....because at this point in time, it doesn't matter.....

Whether or not you agree with the comment quoted above, it is an example of how to debate the issue and to disagree on the ISSUE rather than the poster.

This comment, however,

Is flaming because rather than debating or attacking the issue, the poster is attacking the person.

BIG DIFFERENCE.....very big difference.  There's been too little of the former and far too much of the latter.

Back to the subject at hand, rather than ask what the current Macedonian situation has to do with Alexander the Great, perhaps we should either get back to the subject or dispense with the topic to start with.

Moderators, I find the lies this person spouts in every possible opportunity (and even without any opportunity) highly offending to me and my compatriots and frankly highly offending to any sense of justice and truth.

I am asking for actions taken against this person. While you are at it, I will seize responding or in any other way giving him a chance to further his biased, racist, ignorant, blatant, unethical, hate-filled lies.

Originally posted by Pilot Not only He, but his father "Phillip the barbaros" as he was called, hated greeks with a vengance. Have you heard of Tebes (he was hostage) and Charonea? There was no love for most greeks b4 and after this, only hatered for Greeks which lasted all Phillips life. Even the Greeks danced in the street when Alexander died etc etc. He was a Macedonian warrior and paid homage to lots of gods and ancestors, he also spread greeks well, it is written is in the sourses. The Language he spread in far lands is like you and me using english, it has no consequence when we are at home. That is why greek did not stick in his administered lands when the party was over. See bagdad posts etc. in genetics/linguistics forum if you want to discuss language in detail, not here. I have whatever it is i have, I see you have 5 stars Mr P., Glob.Mod.

Posts deleted in the previous topic. If people want to discuss about the nationality of Alexandros and subsequently the ancient macedonians, do it here. But please do it calmly and using arguments, instead of cries and insults!

Noone but you, has ever heard of anything like Tebes or Charonia as it seems. Either learn to spell a name correctly without assasinating it or dont write it at all.

As for being a hostage, it was something accustomed for a king to send a member of the royal house as a hostage in classical ages. Philip had been sent as a hostage firstly to Illyrians and later to Thebes. Fact is that in many ways Philip was quite fortunate in the time and place of his exile. There he stayed in the house of Pammenes and had the luck of meeting Epaminondas who was then in the process of reorienting hoplite tactics. It is clear that the experience was to have a profound effect on Philip�s development as a commander after he came to the throne. Nothing to do with your illusions. 

The only thing that makes sense in your post. Indeed Macedonian kings were proud of their Argive ancestry but especially Philip not only paid homage as you said to gods but had a statue representing himself among the twelve gods of Olympus both in Pella and at the second most sacred place in Greek world after Delphi, Olympia. 

Histories, Chapter 16, 91.5-6

"He (King Philip) wanted as many Greeks as possible to take part in the festivities in honour of the gods, and so planned brilliant musical contests and lavish banquets for his friends and guests. Out of all Greece he summoned his personal guest-friends and ordered the members of his court to bring along as many as they could of their acquaintances from abroad"

I dont know if you have any clue what you are writing but let me help you a little with making you developing your syllogism, as far as it is possible anyhow.

As you know, many in history have conquered territories and have tried to influence them by spreading their culture/language.

Your next homework will be:

Name me examples in antiquity, from people who have conquered a territory and have spread.... a foreign culture and/or language of people they strongly "hated", as your wrote above.

Had you the slightest common sence, you would ask yourself why Greek language was used in all inscriptions and writings in the areas controlled by Macedonia, among them the territory of Macedonia itself and why would supposedly 'non-Greeks' solely spread the Greek culture, and especially a language of people they highly "hated" as you stated.

What kind of conqueror goes and spreads the culture of people he "hates"?

Ermm... I think that's called war. It's not nice. Though you have a point. Alexander was a great general (not perfect, as I've heard him called), but as you say somewhat of an A--h-o-l-e. Read: example Tyre.