Alexander the """"Great""""

John pls

>>2761747
Who knows, why don't you ask Caesar, Napoleon and every great general after who revered him.

>>2761747
>conquered an enormous chunk of Eurasia and Egypt in 30 years
>literally undefeated
>Middle Easterners BTFO
>facilitated the emergence of Koine Greek
>spread Greek culture far and wide

What's not to like?

>>2761759
don't forget
>paved the way for Christianity to spread easier

>>2761747
whats the deal with the quotations id like to see you
>BTFO'd Persia
>remain undefeated his whole life on the battlefield
>connected Greece to India and then fucked around in India for a bit
honestly for how short the guy was around he accomplished a bunch

Cause he's literally one of the most badass figures of Greek history. The Greeks were in no position to become a massive empire, but Alexander flipped the fucking game.

>>2761872
Alexander was a GENERAL OF MACEDON!

>>2761835
>and then fucked around in India for a bit
For a few months and then he went back home and kicked the bucket. Pretty unclimatic desu

File: 1460737908713.png (17KB, 882x758px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 882x758px

>You will never be one of Alexander's companions...

>>2761747
No idea OP. Here's some text from Iranians in middle Persian describing what Alexander was really like.
>But then, the sinful, corrupt and deceitful spirit, in order to cause people doubt this religion, illusioned/led astray that Alexander the Roman, resident of Egypt, and sent him to Iran with much anger and violence. He murdered the ruler of Iran and ruined court, and the religion, as all the Avesta and Zand (which were) written on the ox-hide and decorated with water-of-gold (gold leaves) and had been placed/kept in Stakhr of Papag, in the 'citadel of the writings.' That wretched, ill-fated, heretic, evil/sinful Alexander, The Roman, who was dwelling in Egypt, and he burned them up.

Iran was one of the most prosperous places in the world back then. While Alexander did all of the above described and much more. Persepolis was burned to the ground, not to mention the unknown hundreds of villages and settlements he burned to the ground during his invasion of southern Iran.

Alexander will be remembered in countries like mine for what he really was - a murdering, a drunken usurping illegitimate barbarian. We don’t call him “the Great”, he's called “Eskandar-e Gojastak” which means “Alexander the Damned”.

People like Cyrus should be called great. Alexander obtained the Persian empire. Cyrus built it.

Literally Mongol/ottoman tier.

>>2761872
Alexander was Bulgarian

>>2761942
Bulgarians didn't exist back then

>>2761930
>text from Iranians in middle Persian
>describing what Alexander was really like

as if they're reliable narrators. PIDF pls, your pathetic armies were destroyed in the open field and your nations were Hellenized.

>>2761899
>speaks greek
>is greek

>>2761930
go to bed Darius your left wing is failing

File: Flag_map_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia.svg.png (121KB, 2000x1571px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 2000x1571px

>>2761950
Umm, proof sweetie?
Alexander of Macedon. You know, the ethnically bulgarian country?

>>2761930
This. Also never forget what he did to the brave Tyrians

File: 1488259554026.jpg (106KB, 560x510px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 560x510px

>>2761976
>modern Macedon

joke country invented on some literal WE WUZ shit.

go to bed prince of Macedon

>>2761979
>joke country invented on some literal WE WUZ shit.
Why are you so aggressive? :^)
Alexander came from Macedonia. Macedonia is populated by Bulgarians. Therefore Alexander was Bulgarian.
We were conquerors

>>2761985
>we were conquerors
>WE
>WUZ
>ALEXANDER N SHIEET


fuck off eastern European barely-white trash

>>2761961
>pathetic armies
You mean the same pathetic armies which ruled Greece for thirty years?

The Greeks beat the Persians because Alexander had a more mobile army in comparison to the large but rigid Achmenaid one.

>>2761979
We fought for centuries for it you prick, we are a joke, and wewuzism is cancer but we have a right to or own country you autistic memer

File: mfw.png (446KB, 493x511px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 493x511px

>>2761995
You seem upset.
:^)

>>2761995
He's obviously memeing you daft cunt you're falling for 2nd grade tier bait, we are white tho you stupid fucking weeb

File: 1489773622132.jpg (25KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x386px

>>2761930
>he doesn't wear bronze armor
>his spear is only 2meters long
>m-muh archers, MUH IMMORTALS

>>2762003
>we we we we

not even trying to hide that you're from the modern republic of Macedon which has absolutely no connection to Alexander the Great or any of his successor kingdoms

It's the biggest joke country on the planet, desperately trying to take credit or draw lineage back to alexander when your area of the world has has had its genetic population massively changed and uprooted since then

File: 1493913882178.jpg (170KB, 625x702px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 625x702px

>>2761985
Okay so two things are wrong with this you fucking gorm
>2000+ of history doesn't alter the demographics of an area
>If you actually knew your modern macedonian politics you'd know there's a huge spat between Greece and Modern Macedonia over that fact they named their country that, even though the actual historical Macedonia is part of Northern Greece

I'm not even the guy you've been replying to, learn your shit.

File: 1463490563023.gif (722KB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 245x245px

>>2762018
>2000+ of history doesn't alter the demographics of an area
Umm, proof sweetie?
Yeah, didn't think so :)
>If you actually knew your modern macedonian politics you'd know there's a huge spat between Greece and Modern Macedonia over that fact they named their country that, even though the actual historical Macedonia is part of Northern Greece
Greek we-wuzism has always been around. Does't make it any more accurate.

>>2762016
Genetic studies show we've always been there and are the same group, stop hate-larping because you cant handle the truth

>>2762039
Wanna show some proof or keep talking out your ass?

>>2762002
>Alexander had a more mobile army

Not only that, it was also better drilled and equipped. And they were free men, man for man likely stronger and more resilient too.

>armies which ruled Greece for thirty years
haha no (Thrace and Macedonia) =/= Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plataea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars#Greek_counterattack_.28479.E2.80.93478_BC.29

In fact the Persians ended up more btfo then they were before. It's a common pattern in Greco-Persian relations.

>>2762039
>we

how do you think I know you're either a)trolling or b)hopelessly bias and therefore not worth talking to in the first place? Well the two-letter word I quoted of course.

Have a nice day.

File: 191f94ec75750dad6f0d4c00019d2bdf.png (240KB, 967x1024px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 967x1024px

>>2762034
>Umm, proof sweetie
Name me a country that hasn't had demographic change in 2000 years
>Greekwewuzism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pella
Look at this and pic related, modern Macedonia is a slavic country grasping at a legacy that isn't theirs. The slavic migration westwards hadn't even occurred at the time of Ancient Macedon and Greek City States. Gorm.

>>2761747
>>2761759
Cyrus the Great > Alexander the Great.

>>2761930
Butthurt Persian please go

>>2762092
>Name me a country that hasn't had demographic change in 2000 years
You're the one making the claim, babycakes <3

>>2761759
You're also forgetting that Alexander also emulated Darius by trying to merge Greek and Persian culture together. Of course you probably aren't aware of the fact Darius did this almost two centuries earlier when he kept encouraging Ionian Greek and Persian/Mede nobles to intermarry with each other and establish a new hybrid gentry in Anatolia.

>>2762110
Alexander the Great was the last King of Kings

>>2762106
Point is, you can't. Every single country has been subjected to demographic change at certain points in time. Look at England, France, Russia etc.

>>2762114
No.

>>2762123
Not him, but most not *ALL* have that issue.

>>2762114
>who is Napoleon

File: KhosrauICoinHistoryofIran.jpg (73KB, 249x245px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 249x245px

>>2762114
Excuse me sir.

>>2761899

>we wuz Alexander and shiet

>>2762094
like you'd know there's virtually no source material to work with and Herodotus just talked him up so that we could compare him with how shitty the later kings were so he could argue that degeneracy ruined the Persian Empire, so nobody really knows what Cyrus was actually like, all we know is that he united a bunch of ethnic groups that had all gone independent after the fall of the Assyrians, and we don't even know how he did it or what his army was really like. Alexander's story might be filled with just as much embellishment, but at least there's an eye for certain strasteria and tactical moves that we can work with, we've got nothing of the sort on Cyrus, no way of knowing if he just swarmed his enemies with overwhelming numbers, had an elite small army that won through tactics and good strategy, or if he was indeed a diplomatic power that won territory through fear and negotiation, nobody really knows.

>>2762204
*strategy

>>2762016
Why should I hide it? I'm proud of where I'm from regardless, where are you from that are so high and mighty? In not even trying to claim lineage, try to read next time.

>>2762018
The modern republic is a part of the geographical region of Macedonia, hence the name, the Republics borders are 100% withing the geographic region so its name is not an issue.

>>2761930
>ottoman/mongol tier

Those people also fucked yours up you iranian nigger.

>>2762146
Who's this irrelevant faggot? Never heard of him.

>>2762281
Slavic Macedonians have nothing to be proud of

>>2761930
This just in: winner of many fights described by losers as a terrible person!

>>2762204
>virtually no source material to work with
Wrong.

>>2762465
>muh statues and tablets that amount to "Cyrus conquered this place fyi"

as I said, virtually no source material. Certainly no historians or contemporary texts to work with, just the remains of architecture and statues with engravings of incredibly generalized events with no details whatsoever. Your primary source is a Greek historian from hundreds of years after the fact.

Tutored by /ourboy/ Aristotle.

You're the pleb.

>>2762114
>who is HHH

>>2762541
Isn't this most likely just a myth?

>>2762557
you can take the Greek historians from this period with a grain of salt.

They were constructing a great myth to rival the illiad and odyssey, it's hard to tell fact from fiction, but at least the general strategic and tactical moves are somewhat reliable. Shit like alexander charging across the river crossing at Darius, almost getting killed and then saved by his companions, seems too "hollywood" to be true, it's hard to tell how much of it is lies to elevate Alexander to the mythical hero status like Hercules or Achilles.

>>2762588
We need time travel for historical accuracy, and finally outing a stop to Anglo revisionism kek

Why didnt Alexander have a son or daughter to leave his empire to?

>>2762681
he had a son, but he was killed

>>2761759
>Enormous chunk of Eurasia

>>2762508
Still wrong, idiot and I'm not going to spoon feed you.

>>2762737
well if you're gonna rely on special, secret history you won't share with the rest of us we won't be able to have much of a historical discussion

File: klimt alexander.jpg (366KB, 801x801px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 801x801px

>>2762730
more eurasia than you ever conquered

Do you guys think his boipussy was tight?

>>2762737
fuck off retard

>>2761759
>Implying Achaemenid Persia wasn't already in decline.

>>2763144
>>2763336
Its not working for (You).

>>2763371
Yes and no. It was reversing the decline when Artaxerxes III was in power but he was assassinated/murdered by Bagoas. Under Atraxerxes III, the Achaemenid Empire's authority was revived, revolt of various governors and other satraps put down, Egypt pacified again and he actively blocked and checked Philip II's power plays and political movements in Greece until his death.

It would've been something else entirely had Alexander gone against a strong ruler like him instead of a weak one like Darius III.

Retarded thracians thinking they are Makedónes lol

>>2763432
>It would've been something else entirely had Alexander gone against a strong ruler like him instead of a weak one like Darius III.

No, the phalanx was unbeatable back then. The only chance Persia had was if Philip didn't get assassinated and asked for Asia minor only instead of the whole Empire.

>>2763467
>No
>Let me make an absolute statement with no quantification or proof of my claims because x would not change even if y did
Stupid.

>>2761930
You were the same thing destroying prosperous places like Egypt and the Levant.

Literally Mongol/ottoman tier

File: Alex.gif (534KB, 1055x1752px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1055x1752px

He wasn't even that great, to be honest.

>>2763853
>tfw Mesopotamia stopped inventing stuff after the Persians conquered it

>>2763897
Good article. Alexboos BTFO

>>2763913
>>2763853
You are retarded if you honestly think this.

>>2764038
>no arguments

>>2764159
Not a valid argument.

>>2761942
albanian*

>>2761759
10 years, not 30.

>>2761747
Because he reversed the constant trend of the East invading the West in his era.

>>2761905
>Pretty unclimatic
His death kicked off a clusterfuck superwar. The period right after his death is the kind of shit a fantasy novel starts with for it's premise.

Another thread raped by alireza losangeleszahdes

>>2762142
The Emperor of Emperors

>>2762681
He did.

Legend is though, that when he was on his deathbed and asked who should rule after him, he said "the strongest."

Some also say he pointed to so and so, referring to them as the strongest, other accounts have him just uttering the words, and others of course make no mention of it whatsoever so the whole thing could just be pure bullshit. Alexander is one of those guys where it's hard to separate the legend from the man because he had a tendency to say and do romantic stuff like that. It's like how Napoleon dared those soldiers to shoot him. The power of charisma and balls.

>>2762557

he was literally tutored by Aristotle you fucking retard, that is an historical fact.

File: alexander.png (2MB, 958x1343px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 958x1343px

Probably because he was the most hardcore motherfucker to ever walk the earth

>>2762002
>thirty years is an accomplishment

>>2765628

>conquering two continents as king of a backwater province is not an accomplishment

>>2765531
Go away, Mahmud.

>>2765588
Second best. Cyrus the Great is still the best.

>>2765701

naw pham Cyrus was great but Alexander was a lunatic. like a monster from mythology. look at his legacy

>>2765718
Nah, Cyrus is better.

>>2762094
Cyrus was a faggot.

File: 800px-CyrustheGreatTomb_22057.jpg (72KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x600px

>>2765733

that must be why no one outside of Iran knows him

nice tomb though

>>2765735
Wrong.

>>2765746
Low quality bait.

>>2765746
Thomas Jefferson is from Iran?

>>2765754

pham you would be hard pressed to find a place where the name of Alexander is not known. Even the jungle tribes of Africa know him

Cyrus meanwhile is a 1000 dollar Jeopardy answer

>>2765760
Tangent wasn't about how well or not well known Alexander is, stay on target.

>Cyrus meanwhile is a 1000 dollar Jeopardy answer
(You) claimed he's only known in Iran. That is categorically and factually wrong.

>>2765766

he's not widely known outside the Persian gulf; still more obscure outside of the Muslim world

I bet you think Dhul-Qarnayn was Cyrus too. The Iranian version of >WE WUZ

Alexander's exploits were greater and more widely known

>>2765774
>he's not widely known outside the Persian gulf
False.
>still more obscure outside of the Muslim world
Half-truth.
>Alexander's exploits were greater
False.
>more widely known
True.

>>2765760
>mfw my parents don't know who Alexander was

>ctrl+f philip
>2 irrelevent results

Philip II MADE Alexander. If it wasn't for his revolutionary military reforms which allowed him to unify Greece, and his providing of the literal best of the best education for Alexander, then Alexander would not have been any where nearly as successful as he was.

>>2765798
Its the Alexander inherited his fathers army meme.

>>2765801
Calling something a meme doesn't invalidate the point in any way. Tell me, how is the argument a meme?

>>2765781

Alexander's personal exploits were undoubtedly greater. We can argue about conquests but his deeds (in addition to being more thoroughly documented) showed more raw bravado and charisma. Keep in mind that Alexander was King of a little backwater and had to borrow 800 talents just to march to the Hellespont.

He finished his campaigns in modern day India and dropped dead at 32. Cyrus lived to the ripe old age of 70. If Alexander had had another 20 years to rule over his empire we'd be living on Titan today. It is doubtful Rome ever becomes an empire or Christianity a religion. His death in Babylon in 323 was the point around which the whole of human history has pivoted. An invasion of Arabia was to be his next campaign.

>>2765798
See >>2763897

>>2765798

no shit pham, but Phillip would never have conquered Persia or marched to India.

Fate can set the board and arrange all the pieces, but the players determine the outcome of each game

File: john jihad green.png (301KB, 847x481px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 847x481px

>>2763897

John Green is that you?

>>2763897

t. University of Tehran

>>2765819
>Phillip would never have conquered Persia or marched to India

Well, Philip actually was planning on invading Persia but was killed before he had the opportunity.

>>2765814
Okay that picture is pretty funny. But just because an idiot uses an argument, doesn't make the point any less sound (Exhibit A: me)

>>2765805
Because its a meme in the real sense of the world and his accomplishments are still amazing, I doubt Philip could have done it in Alexanders place.

File: 22f8ee243e32f5bb6da88f54993f454e[1].jpg (986KB, 3285x2190px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 3285x2190px

>>2761747
What I don't understand is how he managed it.
Like you would think, at some point, some of the cities he conquered would say "hey you know what, lets just raid his supply lines because hes hundreds of miles away".

But it never fuckin happened.

>>2765835

his invasion was supposed to free the Greek states from bondage. he would have taken Darius' 10,000 talents and fucked off back to Pella

>>2765838

because he made each one swear a pledge, and if they broke it he massacred the men and sold the women and children into slavery

Alexander was very trusting, almost to fault, but god help you if you broke your promise

>>2765810
>Alexander's personal exploits were undoubtedly greater.
No they weren't.
>show more raw bravado
Sure but that isn't a positive trait necessarily
>charisma
Categorically false.
>Keep in mind that Alexander was King of a little backwater
That controlled all of Greece, Thrace, and Macedonia thanks to his father. Now Cyrus grew up with a maternal grandfather trying to murder him, had to lead a revolt without being experienced in war or battle at the age of 15-16 years old and went on to defeat not one, but the three most powerful empires in the world in the span of 30 years.
>Cyrus lived to the ripe old age of 70
No he didn't. He died in his early 50s at best. And Cyrus never got to truly administrate or govern his empire, he was largely expanding its boarders, fortifying its territories, and fighting hostile raiders, nomads, and other empires throughout most of his life.

Stop lying.

>>2765845
>Alexander was very trusting, almost to fault
But it actually worked. And that's what dumbfounds me.

Not just intentional fuckups.
Supplies always got to him, halfway across the world, in the 300's B.C., without any fuckups.
You can't even order a Chinese from a few blocks down the road without a chance they will fuck up you're order in some way.
His logistics were fucking magic.

>>2765810
>Cyrus lived to 70
>most academically accepted age for Cyrus was he died between 44-49 years old
>almost all academics have verified like Alexander he spent most of his life fighting, annexing territories, and in war
???

Where the fuck did you get to almost 70 from? He didn't even get to 50.

>>2765862

Fucking delusional m8. You need to get over yourself. Cyrus was a great king but Alexander eclipsed him in every way including symbolically. There is no Cyrian Romance. The term Shahanshah was never used outside of Persia or the Islamic caliphates. Basileus was used in Rome and Byzantium.

The mere financing of Alexander's campaigns was a legend unto itself. He crushed the Persians because centuries of Imperial power and prosperity had made them soft and decadent. Their customs were a hindrance in times of war. Look at the baggage train Darius dragged behind him at both Issus and Arbela.

Alexander also benefits from better documentation, period. It's the advantage of springing from Hellas. His campaign was harder and consequently shorter. It was a miracle he lasted 12 years. And Alexander had his share of intrigue and conspiracy as well. His own father tried to kill him, and afterwards he fled into exile with his mother. There were numerous plots against his life while on campaign. He was probably poisoned before he died. And yet he undertook all this marching and fighting for one thing: everlasting fame.

Well, he got it.

>>2765898

>born circa 600
>died circa 530
>50 years old

No wonder the Arabs had to invent algebra

>>2764038
It really is an argument, though.
Pretty much every single nation on this Earth with a victim complex has done things just as bad, if not worse.

>>2765968
>born circa 600
>circa

>>2765968
>Born: 580 BC
>Died: 529 BC
>41 years
???

>>2766056
*51 years

>>2761930
testimony from faggy iranians, just BDSM queers with beards, that's what they always has been

>>2765522
>His death kicked off a clusterfuck superwar. The period right after his death is the kind of shit a fantasy novel starts with for it's premise.
What's this?

>>2766889
Wars of the Diadochi

40 years of Macedonians chimping out and trying their absolute best to destroy their own civilisation

>>2766870
>Iranians
>BDSM queers with beards
>saying this in defense of a culture unironically infamous historically for pederasty

>>2767688
>t. iranian ministry of information
sup dude, it's been a couple posts

>>2761872
>not realizing that the army, the plans, and the vision were already put in place by his father Phillip II before he died
>not realizing that he inherited the world's greatest military, which had already conquered Greece

>>2768474
>t. Iranian
I don't get this meme. Also if you are accusing me of samefagging you are a retard.

Alexander feared the Carthaginians

File: chastisement of the macedonians.jpg (190KB, 784x898px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 784x898px

Alexanders own perspective on his achievements, in response to his troops who were rising in mutiny when they misunderstood the intentions behind his offer to send them home.

>>2767688

Iran is literally the sex change capital of the Eastern hemisphere

>>2768503

Actually Alexander had to subjugate Greece before he could set out for Asia. When Philip died a coalition of Greek states rose up in defiance of Macedonian rule, Athens and Thebes among them. Thebes was wiped out of existence, and Athens had to put its head back in the yoke.

Alexander's army was constantly being expanded and replenished on the march with mercenaries, local conscripts and fresh bodies from Greece. He started out with roughly 30,000 and finished in India with well over 100,000. Philip only gave him that original 30,000, and by the end of the march most of them had died of wounds, disease, malnutrition or exposure.

>>2769312

That must have been why he was planing to subjugate Carthage on his way to Rome.

t. Zahir Daoud Shah Karzai Mohammed Khan

File: Gaetano_Gandolfi_-_Alexander_and_Diogenes.jpg (48KB, 510x413px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 510x413px

Oh h-hey alex(burp)zander,
you know what i, i think of yooour stupid empire?
(burp)
its f-f-fucking dumb ha take that
and you also n-no (burp) what
>what
i got to get me that sardis sauce
and stop blocking my sun
>wow what a genius

was alexander the first redditor?

>>2761747
Very few military leaders in history have been able to pull off a conquest like he did. Not even Caesar or Napoleon could match him and that's why they jacked off to him.
Despite his army numbering only in the tens of thousands, he managed to conquer everything from Greece to the Indus valley. The odds he was up against dwarf all other contenders for the title of greatest military leader. He successfully did all he set out to do and could've kept going if his men hadn't grown weary. That's why he's revered

>>2770703
Also more importantly, what seperates him from the rest of the pack is that he didn't lose in the end

>>2770703
>and could've kept going if his men hadn't grown weary.
Well that's a huge part of being a military commander. If you can't motivate your men to fight their hearts and souls out- that's your problem.

>>2770806

he literally dragged 100,000 men through the monsoons in India for half a year for no other purpose than wanting to finish a map. Any inferior commander would have been murdered by his troops a dozen times during Alexander's campaigns. The entire Macedonian army threatened to desert because he wouldn't let them kiss his face.

Go read about all the Roman Emperors who were carved up by the army or their own bodyguard. Alexander was revered as one step removed from a god while he was alive, and the ones that mutinied in India were from the original 30,000 that had left Macedon with him. Most of them were pushing 50 or 60 by then.

>>2771269
>it's another alexanderboo jerks off alexander post
Still largely inferior to Cyrus.

>Alexander was revered as one step removed from a god while he was alive,
That's because he tried real hard to make it so.

But yes, yes.. Alexander would have not only conquered India... but China and SEA too! If only his men didn't quit right at the climax :^)

>>2769919

And in Europe it's forbidden not to have any LGBT rights in a country.

>>2771289
>we know next to nothing about Cyrus
>muh better than alexander

and yet most of what we know is from Greek sources. hmmm

Cyrus was obviously great (heh) but we don't know any specifics about his troop numbers, tactics, strategy, or even army composition really. All we know is that he conquered a lot of places, but nothing about how other than some mentions of diplomacy. No written primary source from the Persian perspective exists, it's a shame really but you're dick riding some guy we know very little about vs the granddaddy of western civ.

>>2771289
>Cryus the Irrelevant

Should have just let his men loose on a city, and then drafted a new army. Kept all the old ones around that wanted to stay to train on a new army.

>>2762064

Honestly, a bunch of homosexuals who relied entirely on stabbing people in hand to hand crushing their military and then running about the empire causing trouble had to be the most bizarre shit in the world to the Persians.

>largest empire in the world
>SO MANY BOWS
>cavalry
>professional infantry corp
>archery is war
>war is archery

>lose to a bunch of farmers with a tiny, tiny number of professionals whose entire fighting force can't match half of one of your armies
>in the open
>twice
>they literally fight wars solely by walking over and stabbing people

>have a fuckign massive navy full of professionals
>lose to backwater hicks you totally outnumber
>beach that shit, , arm tens of thousands of rowers
>your ships have four times the complement of marines
>proceed to lose your entire fucking navy in the resulting land battle despite every advantage being on your side

Honestly, it reads like a bad fiction. Power fantasy bullshit.

But no, the Persians just got their asses kicked THAT FUCKING BADLY. It's incredible.


>>2762588
It only seems too Hollywood until you realize how common it was for diadochi to pull the same stunts, or even have ACTUAL duels between generals rather than just trying for decapitation strikes.

Hellenes were fucking ridiculous, no way around it.

>>2763467
>No, the phalanx was unbeatable back then
you.... do realize it wasn't the most imporant part of his army, right?

And that it relied entirely on far lighter and more conventional infantry on the flanks to survive while Alexander was off with the cavalry?


And that the loss of these men or the cavalry would leave it surrounded and inevitably destroyed?

A strong leader, or even a merely competent one, could have crushed Alexander several times over.

Darius was neither and couldn't make good military decisions.

>>2771657
>A strong leader, or even a merely competent one, could have crushed Alexander several times over. Darius was neither and couldn't make good military decisions.


This is so damn retarded. Alexander never lost a battle, not against Darius, not against the Greeks, not against the Indians, not against the Phoenicians, etc. All the while facing numerous commanders (not only Darius, this isn't Europa Universalis) and he defeated them all. He started from almost nothing to rulling almost everything from the known world.

By your logic Napoleon was shit because he didn't face any good commanders. Hannibal was shit for the same reason. Or maybe they're just that good of generals that make the others generals look like shit? Ever think about that?

>>2771700
>He started from almost nothing to rulling almost everything from the known world.
He was literally handed one of the best armies in the world, to use to fight large coalition forces that didn't give a shit about each other and which were largely either levies, or utterly inexperienced, unblooded recruits. He also had an incredibly capable staff that were virtually all exceptional generals in their own right.

That is the opposite of "almost nothing." Phillip handed Alexander everything he needed to take Persia.

>By your logic Napoleon was shit because he didn't face any good commanders.
I never said he was shit, you butthurt faggot.

>Hannibal was shit for the same reason.
He was objectively shit. His strategic plan was shortsighted, relied on stupid assumptions, and had a very low chance of long term success. His idiocy is the reason Carthage was wiped out.

The generals he defeated were literally leading a semi-professional militia that was by nature capable of only very limited tactical choices, and he had YEARS to build around this.

The moment the Romans stopped acting like a windup toy, hannibal wasn't able to accomplish naything of note.

Fuck hannibal. He's the second most overrated general in history.

>>2763245
Yes. The form of Aristotle's dick barely mattered it was so small.

>>2771725
>He was objectively shit
>His idiocy is the reason Carthage was wiped out.

>Carthage was doomed from the First Punic War
>Hannibal miraculously gave it one last chance
>Unsuccessful due to nearly impossible odds
>LOL WHAT A SHIT GENERAL I BET HE CAN'T FIT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE TOO

>>2771770
Not him but going over the alps was pretty stupid desuuu
That nigger lost an eye, most of his men, and his elephants

>>2769943
Nah he stopped at Egypt because he knew he'd get rekt by Hannibal

>>2771725
>He was literally handed one of the best armies in the world
True, to an extent. However that doesn't take credit from Alexander's brilliant military tactics that swung many of the battles around like Gaugamela and Hydaspes. Can't delve into detail, post limit

>I never said he was shit
>by your logic
Learn to read, retard.

>He was objectively shit.
What a pile of horseshit. His strategic plan was solid, his execution was even more so, and had every chance of working against any other nation. After the first two battles any nation would have sued for peace. After Cannae - unconditional surrender. The Romans had such unseen resistance that it's practically impossible anyone could have predicted and known about.

>The generals he defeated were literally leading a semi-professional militia
Are you fucking retarded? By the time of Hannibal's invasion Rome was already a dominant military force, uniting Italia, defeating Pyrrhus and going toe to toe with Carthage in the FPW (the dominant Mediterranean power). They were arguably the strongest nation alongside Carthage.

>and he had YEARS to build around this.
Not at all. Hannibal was in charge of the army for 3 years before the SPW, during those years he mainly subjugated the various Hispanic tribes and didn't have his eyesights on Rome yet. Did he plan to go to war with them eventually? Most likely yes, as did the Romans, however the Romans accelerated the process by guaranteeing Saguntum. He certainly wasn't ready for the war when he set off from Hispania. Furthermore the Romans weren't just sitting with their thumb up their ass, they were doing the exact same thing Hannibal was doing - a future war to determine who rules the world.

>The moment the Romans stopped acting like a windup toy, hannibal wasn't able to accomplish anything of note
Not really, they just avoided him. Fabian's strategy was revolutionary and something that we study and it's being used to this day.

>>2772324
Also, I want to add that even though Hannibal was a genius commander, he was also a brilliant administrator as well, reviving Carthage from the brink destruction, making them extremely wealthy again even though when he became Suffet they had already lost their entire glory.

If anything, Hannibal is actually underrated because he is mostly remembered for his brilliant military exploits and not for his amazing statesmanship. The things he did during his short time as suffete were great.

File: alexander-and-aristotle.jpg (733KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1600x900px

>>2771814
First Arabia, then Carthage, then Rome and probably even the entirety of Europe would've been conquered by him in that order, hadn't he died so soon. There would be absolutely nothing in the world that could stop him after taking on the Persian Empire and India, unless he somehow found out about China and wanted to conquer it, which would probably be too difficult to achieve.
>Hannibal
Came long after Alexander, and he would probably shit his pants, because he knew and stated he was the best military commander.

File: 1492020260368.jpg (73KB, 415x960px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 415x960px

>>2771725
>He was objectively shit. His strategic plan was shortsighted, relied on stupid assumptions, and had a very low chance of long term success.
Your opinion is objectively shit.
The only thing Hannibal did wrong was underestimate just how terrified the Roman allies were of the city-state to whom they were clients. He thought that if he could repeatedly curb-stomp the Romans in the field even in the face of overwhelming odds (which he did), he could show them that the Romans could be beaten.

And beaten them, he would have, were it not for the fact that Romans happened to be gifted with history's most underrated politician: Quintus Fabius. While every other Roman was hyperventilating with madness at the chance to raise a huge army and meet Hannibal in the field and suffer the same fate of every other army that they threw into Hannibal's grinder, it was the procrastinator alone who understood that the Romans didn't have to defeat Hannibal but simply outlast him, and his talent for placating hordes of terrified Romans by taking and passing religious tests is truly legendary.

>The generals he defeated were literally leading a semi-professional militia
Does this mean that we can finally dispense with the meme that Rome's victory was inevitable in the Second Punic War? It only seems that way in hindsight.

Had Hannibal marched siege engines over the Alps instead of Elephants, he would have marched straight to Rome and that would have been the end of it.

File: hitler power stance.jpg (34KB, 544x733px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 544x733px

“Whenever the West was threatened by the stupidity and obscurantism of Asia it always brought forth a superman to stand at the gates.”

—Adolf Hitler on Alexander the Great

>>2772456
>First Arabia, then Carthage, then Rome and probably even the entirety of Europe would've been conquered by him in that order hadn't he died so soon

Probably not. Overextension here matters and while he could have easily conquered Arabia, it was a useless territory. Carthage would have been a tough cookie and even though Rome wasn't anything special back then, conquering them AND the other Italian tribes would have been extremely tough. Conquering the entirety of Europe? Impossible.

>because he knew and stated he was the best military commander.
If you're talking about the conversation between Hannibal and Scipio about who's the best general, I wouldn't exactly put that much faith into it. Livy while providing alot of important info also is known for giving some very uncredible stories. I think this is surely the work of imagination, such a conversation just does not seem authentic in the slightest. It probably never happened and it's just Livy LARP-ing.

Hannibal's military victories were more impressive than Alexander's and I can't see why Hannibal would put Pyrrhus above him considering that Hannibal did way more damage to the Romans than Pyrrhus ever imagined of doinng.

File: 56-3975033-1444588142e2f4e210cfb14019a3fc0101971a86bb.jpg (39KB, 558x668px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 558x668px

>>2761747
>Why do plebs love him so much?
Because they mistake privilege for actual merit.

>Took his daddy's military pie out of the oven.
Having a large, professional, technologically advanced army with a crack officer corps and elite cavalry detachment was Phillip II's baby that he spent his lifetime putting together and organizing, and it seems fairly likely that Alexander simply killed him and took it from him. The better part of Alexander's field success can probably be attributed to generals like Seleucus and Ptolemy.

>Took Athen's foreign policy pie out of the oven.
Athens held back the Persians when they were at the peak of their power. Athens showed Greece that they could beat the Persians if they put aside their petty squabbling and united, but were stabbed in the back by Ooga-Boogas in the Peloponnese in their moment of vulnerability, but none of those jealous primitive cunts were up to the task until Phillip II conquered them, and even burned Thebes just to stop them from chimping out that somebody else is getting the glory, and didn't even bother conquering the Spartans because he knew them for the self-promoting fakers that they were.

>fought Persia when it was old, decrepit, exhausted, and suffering from poor leadership
from endless decades of revolts which left them ripe for the conquest by the time Alexander came along.

>Died like a little bitch when he was told that he wouldn't be allowed to conquer any more
When he was told that being a leader was more than simply winning battles and that he couldn't realistically conquer India and needs to return to actually rule his newfound kingdom, he sperged out and drank himself to death. And then his kingdom fragmented into dust and squabbling successor states because he did nothing to ensure his own legacy.

>>2761747
In my eyes, Alexander was a barbarian conqueror, just like Atilla or Genghis Khan
We only see him as a hero because he belonged to "our" culture.

>>2771790
Going by sea and just landing in Rome was impossible because of, you guessed it, the First Punic War. At least he got some soldiers there by some miracle. His only problems were that he lacked the manpower to besiege Rome and couldn't attack their garrison in an offensive assault.

>>2772544
t. FYROMian pretending to be Greek

>>2772564
How can you argue that Genghis Khan isn't greater than Alexander?
At least his Empire lasted

File: Battle_of_Issus_Alexander_the_Great.jpg (4MB, 2192x1024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2192x1024px

>>2772493
>why Hannibal would put Pyrrhus above him considering that Hannibal did way more damage to the Romans
Probably because of high-potential, he was a relative of Alexander and died a pretty shitty death, one which Alexander also almost faced.
Nevertheless, even if Hannibal didn't state it, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to take on Alexander, the one person who has been considered a God throughout the Ancient World and conqueror of the then known World.

During the time of Hannibal, Rome had started to become a force to be reckoned with, but it didn't have as much prestige as the former Persian Empire during that time and certainly wasn't nowhere near as large.

Because of this, Alexander achieved more than Hannibal, that is not to undermine him though, for he is great, but not Alexander-tier, as for who would win against each other? That's hard to determine, but if Hannibal lived during Alexander's time, and instead of the Persian Empire and India, he would've put all his resources into Carthage, it could've gone really bad for Carthage and Hannibal.

>>2772510
>fought Persia when it was old, decrepit, exhausted, and suffering from poor leadership
There is little evidence to support that the Persians were doing badly, I only agree with the poor leadership part, but it wasn't just Darius, and attributing their loss to only him would be a silly idea, it takes a lot of skill to conquer an Empire either way and then to just continue on.

>he sperged out and drank himself to death.
Or he was poisoned, because his Generals were cunts who probably also faked his last will, and Aristotle hated him because he killed a traitor who was related to Aristotle, and possibly conspired against him. Even Caracalla thought so and killed those of the Aristotelian school.


>>2772544
Alexander left buildings, monuments and plenty of culture behind of him in everything that he conquered, he wasn't a barbarian in that regard.

>>2772575
Genghis Khan's empire had the same fate as Alexander, split into different parts after his death which then began falling one by one. Also half of the land was filled with nothing

>>2772590
Macedonians were even considered barbarian by other Greeks

>>2772599
Greeks considered other Greeks to be barbarians whenether they felt like it so that's not saying much

>>2772618
Either way, the end result is that Alexander took something beautiful, the Persian Empire, and destroyed it, transforming it into a bunch of warring petty kingdoms

>>2772575
>Alexander had to take over an entire Empire
>Alexander's generals were greedy and killed his heir
>half the land Genghis Khan conquered was empty
>his descendents had to continue on his legacy in order to get the empire as large as it was which took many of them

File: apollo.jpg (113KB, 860x670px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 860x670px

>>2772590
>There is little evidence to support that the Persians were doing badly,
That's mostly because Alexander burned it all and left little for antiquity to study, as this >>2772544 anon pointed out, let's not forget that Alexander was a barbarian whom we admire because he was "our" barbarian.

We can only indirectly extrapolate based on what we know from similar cultures throughout history, and the length of time that the Achaemenids existed is right in line with the average lifespan of despotic regimes from that time period. 250 years, give or take a few decades, is how long the Seleucid Empire lasted, how long the two separate phases of the Roman Empire lasted (Principate and Dominate), how long the two separate Han Dynasties lasted, the Gupta Empire, etc. There was an upper limit to how long these sort of societies were capable of sustaining themselves, and all of the ones for which a lot of records remain, like the collapse of the Han Dynasty or the Roman principate during the crisis of the 3rd century, we know that they were all experiencing wide spread social break-down being exacerbated by a top-heavy, out of touch ruling regime.

>>2772631
sounds to me, like Alexander failed to create a legacy, while mongol empire existed for centuries

>>2772631
>>2772592
>>half the land Genghis Khan conquered was empty

nice meme

>>2762106
This isn't plebbit, you're not going to get anywhere with the "sweetie" and "honeybunches" routine

File: hmmmm.gif (408KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 500x345px

>>2772638
>Alexander was a barbarian
>literally tutored by Aristotle
>barbarian

File: Alexander-refusing-Water.jpg (515KB, 1920x1349px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1920x1349px

>>2771269
Alexander cared a lot about his troops, and his troops loved him.
They valued his health and life more than he seemingly did himself at times, they feared him, but also loved him, and definitely relied a lot on him when it came to journeys or when it came to battles. They were absolutely frightened when he was shot in the throat by an arrow.
Alas, it was only in India where they wanted to quit. Alexander was doing amazingly well, but his armies were tired. And guess what? He did stop, because he cared about his people.
>Any inferior commander would have been murdered by his troops a dozen times during Alexander's campaigns
Which he wasn't. His troops tried their best to never disappoint him, which they might've done in India, but Alexander didn't go into a fit of rage or march on, and actually just stopped and went back, which also saved the asses of the Indians, clearly, because they didn't push him on this decision at all.
Had he continued on India might've looked different today.

>>2772590
>Nevertheless, even if Hannibal didn't state it, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to take on Alexander, the one person who has been considered a God throughout the Ancient World and conqueror of the then known World.

It's true that Hannibal had quite a lot of respect for Greek culture, as his tutor was a Spartan, if Alexander went against Carthage he would have definitely went on to "take" him.

>During the time of Hannibal, Rome had started to become a force to be reckoned with, but it didn't have as much prestige as the former Persian Empire
Prestige and ability are entirely different things. The Persian Empire had a lot of prestige because it was extremely large for its time and extremely durable. That doesn't necessarily may they were strong.

The Roman Republic during the SPW could have beaten Darius easily. The Romans annihilated the Seleucids, who recovered most of Alexander's Empire, easily. That was shortly after the SPW.

>Because of this
I never disputed that Alexander achieved more than Hannibal, that is out of the question. However his victories weren't as impressive as Hannibal's.

No, Alexander which just his Macedonian Greek territory would have never beaten Carthage with Hannibal at the helm. Now if you include the entirety of his Empire (Persia, Egypt) and the resources it had, then yes, he could have defeated him.

>>2772324
I never said Alexander was shit. My post was literally entirely about darius. read harder.

>>2772721
/his/ is the closest 4chan board to plebbit, even closer than /soc/. Sorry, "pumpkin".

>>2772777
Your whole post implies he was shit by claiming that the olny reason Alexander won against Darius was Darius' incompetency and Philip setting everything perfect for him without mentioning his genius in battles or what he had to go through before even invading Persia.

>>2772826
No, that's you constructing a strawman. I am under no obligation to engage in masturbatory praise of Alexander.

I stated that a better leader could have defeated alexander.

And, yes, an actually competent leader would have been able to do so, given the massive disparity in numbers Alexander faced, especially with his tendency to lead from the front.

>>2761942
Russian*

>>2772860
People like to shit on Darius in order to make Alexander look weak.

Darius was only ever really engaged in the battles once, and even then, his army outnumbered Alexander's 2 to 1, even a far more capable ruler would've had problems dealing with someone like Alexander, you can't just attribute the conquering of the Persians to their incapable leader, because the Persians clearly had a multitude of advantages, and still lost.

File: 1464795907743.jpg (52KB, 420x388px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 420x388px

>>2761907
>he will never squeeze your balls tightly as he tells you about his grand plans to conquer the Persians

>>2772860
>I stated that a better leader could have defeated alexander.

What do you define as a "better" leader? For there to be a better leader that leader should have defeated Alexander which implies that leader would be even greater than Alexander himself which is stupid. The reason Alexander won was because he was better than those he fought.

So as I said, using your logic - Napoleon would have died in Italy if he had faced competent commander, Hannibal would have been defeated by some Hispanic tribe, Caesar would have failed in Gaul, etc, etc.

It's just extremely stupid to say such things.

>>2772943
Sorry honey, he was American

File: uday_qusay,0.jpg (47KB, 350x272px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 350x272px

>>2772738
Just because your daddy has enough pillaged wealth to afford you the finest things doesn't mean that you don't possess the mindset of a thug who steals whatever he feels like without remorse or empathy for the people who suffer

>>2773234
Only an Indian or Iranian would be this butthurt over Alexander. Which is it?

>>2763897
the weak shall always find excuse to shit talk the strong.

Alexander was, in all his imperfection, a perfect man, ruined by the same things that made him great.

>>2773234
Except Alexander, while of great fury, also honored his enemies, never fought dirty, and was basically against degeneracy. He was of a learned mind, but things such as war and conquering were commonplace at the time, so stop being so butthurt.

File: 9bdc060d7daf816aeb9e7c7b14bdeb3d-caracalla.jpg (70KB, 736x588px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x588px

>>2763897
This is honestly pathetic.

File: Gibbon on military ambition.jpg (601KB, 975x1248px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 975x1248px

>>2773254
American, who isn't so caught up on ethno-supremacist pseudoscience that he can admire the Persians for what they were, and can filter Alexander through a prism of world history and see him for what he was, instead of relying on outdated eurocentric historiography where I am supposed to admire history's destroyers for the patch of mud they happened to be born on.
>>2773268
It's not butthurt, it's perspective. The only butthurt ones are the ones whose favorite "heroes" are being put in proper historical context.
>Except Alexander, while of great fury, also honored his enemies, never fought dirty, and was basically against degeneracy
You could say the exact same things about Cyrus. For centuries he, not Alexander, was held up as the exemplary example of everything that a wise, benevolent ruler should aspire to be.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Xen.%20Cyrop.

File: redditor.png (117KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x263px

>>2773319
>American, who isn't so caught up on ethno-supremacist pseudoscience that he can admire the Persians for what they were, and can filter Alexander through a prism of world history and see him for what he was, instead of relying on outdated eurocentric historiography where I am supposed to admire history's destroyers for the patch of mud they happened to be born on.
You realise the Persians did just as much conquering and murdering, right?
But I guess that's fine because they're brown instead of a FUCKING GREEK MALE

>>2773319
>You could say the exact same things about Cyrus
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with Cyrus, and we do call him Cyrus the Great, even Alexander admired him, but Alexander has just stuck in our minds for his extraordinary achievements.

>>2772741
>A>B>C logic
Literally retarded.

File: Alexander-Empire_323bc.jpg (933KB, 2321x1288px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 2321x1288px

I can't seem to find myself again
My walls are closing in
(Without a sense of confidence)
(I'm convinced that there's)
(Just too much pressure to take)
I've felt this way before so insecure...

File: persepolis.jpg (370KB, 600x410px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 600x410px

CRAWWWWLING IN MY SKINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEALLL

>>2761930
>Iran was one of the most prosperous places in
ironically there isn't much records left of that to prove anything like that

The only Iranian city Alexander burnt down was Persepolis.
>>2762002
>he considers Asia minor as Greece
>>2762204
We've got
-the Behistun inscription which mentions Cyrus and describes how Darius rose to power
-Cyrus cylinder that mentions the background behind the defeat of Babylon
-Ctetias who was apparently apart of the Persian court and got to ask about their history
-Babylonian annals writers that describe some notable events
we have some.
>>2762557
as far as historical biographies between documented characters in Greco-Roman sources go, it's credible. Aristotle had a nephew who worked as a page or something for Alexander during his campaign, and he believed his nephew plotted to kill him and had him executed, which there's fragments of contemporary historians documenting that happening. Aristotle's writings show that he had a sense of familiarity of Macedonian culture and history.

>>2763467
>the phalanx was unbeatable back then
only in a confine area where confrontation was inevitable. Light-infantry and Calvary can easily off-set it in the open if it doesn't have auxiliary counter forces.
>>2765838
There was barely any 'supply-lines'. Armies foraged off of the land and just bought from markets they came across. Some of the conquered cities to revolt though and got put down.

File: 1465744420610.jpg (30KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x270px

>>2773353
Why do you think that because you indulge in obsessive, narrow-minded hero-worship that everyone else does? Why can't you just accept human beings as the complex beings that they are instead of getting buttflustered about what you think they ought to be?

File: 1494140018414.jpg (50KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 720x528px

>>2773672
>Why can't you just accept human beings as the complex beings that they are instead of getting buttflustered about what you think they ought to be?
You're the one sucking on Cyrus' moldy toes and telling us how Alexander was just a 'destroyer'

File: screen-shot-2013-08-07-at-9-03-40-am.png (817KB, 777x522px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 777x522px

>>2773785
Well, there was the small detail that Cyrus built a prosperous, expansionary regime that lasted over 2 centuries, while Alexander's kingdom fragmented into successor states as soon as he died, and even the Bible speaks glowingly of him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great_in_the_Bible
while it doesn't have anything to say at all about Alexander. By Roman times disenfranchised Jews suffering under the yoke of foreign occupation pined for another Cyrus to come liberate them, not an Alexander. Cyrus and the Persians had eradicated slavery from the middle east while the Hellenes brought it back. The Islamic religion itself could be seen as a giant blowback to corrupt Hellenic regimes conspiring with degenerate feudal oligarchs to keep this (what was at the time very cosmopolitan) region under their oppressive (even by contemporary standards) thumb.

But oh, I guess because I'm not blindly supporting the "white guy" (even though such a thing is patently retarded to apply on a historical scale) that makes me a permanent enemy to all things western.

>>2773378
Am I wrong?

>>2773878
Yeah, you should go back to r3ddit bub
DAE hate the FUCKING WHITE MEN!
*sigh* those persians were faaaar more civilised!

File: d8a7d099a5ed6456afde16e3b55a5a3c.jpg (36KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x500px

>>2773937
>Yeah, you should go back to r3ddit bub
fuck you, pussy. Go back to /pol/ if you can't stand the searing limelight of impartial and unbiased discussion.

Or better yet, go read a book. Here's one that the American Founding Fathers considered an indispensable addition to their library
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2085/2085-h/2085-h.htm

>>2773959
Sorry cupcake, but this isn't r*ddit
Try to take a nap dear, you are getting to aggressive :)

>>2772493
>Hannibal's military victories were more impressive than Alexander's
ahahhaah fucking nope

daily reminder all Hannibal's victories are attributed only to Numidian cavarly, when they switched side they couldn't do a shit and got massacred despite numerical advantage

>>2774199
>daily reminder all Hannibal's victories are attributed only to Numidian cavarly
hol up
u sayin dat it was brothas dat beat the romans?
woah.... my ancestors were badass

>>2771725
>The generals he defeated were literally leading a semi-professional militia
what a horseshit, they were professional commanders by the standards of the time and Rome had already a proper professional army its just their military tactics and strategy yet had to be revised

>>2773268
>also honored his enemies

Not the Tyrians

File: 16a9061cd1c863b70f676a3d07ba56dc.jpg (108KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x640px

>>2774033
figured that you wouldn't have anything of substance left to say.

>>2774199
>daily reminder all Hannibal's victories are attributed only to Numidian cavarly,
And here's your reminder that without his Companion cavalry, Alexander would have been just another wannabe power broker in the Hellenic world.

Ultimately all generals are a reflection of the capabilities of the tools at their disposal.

>>2774228
It is horseshit to call them a semi-professional militia, but they were largely green, inexperienced conscripts lead by morons who only got their officer rank because their families purchased it for them, going against Hannibal's ragtag band of hardened veterans, grizzled mercenaries, and wild, savage Celts.

>>2773933
Its a wrong way of arguing anything.

>>2762114
>we
>wuz
>kang of kangs

>>2763897
A surprisingly good list despite some filler to get to 10

>>2774396
>citizen soldiers in a militarized society are better than a band of barbarians from all over the Mediterranean led by a rich dude from a marchant-marine society.
You're delusional, its much harder to keep an army of mercenaries intact for 10 years than it is to raise an army of people who want to protect their homeland.
>wild savage celts
are you kidding? none of that aids you in warfare

>>2773547
>-the Behistun inscription which mentions Cyrus and describes how Darius rose to power
-Cyrus cylinder that mentions the background behind the defeat of Babylon
-Ctetias who was apparently apart of the Persian court and got to ask about their history
-Babylonian annals writers that describe some notable events


aka we've got jack shit. A couple of inscriptions at the bottom of some monuments, a secondary source from some guy that asked questions around the court (so even he didn't have sources that we know of, it'd be nice to have his sources if he did then we'd have something primary), and some vague Babylonian texts that aren't even necessary contemporary.

All this for a guy that is for the east what Alexander or Caesar is for the west, it's insane how little we know about such a huge figure. You could read all the source material in an afternoon there's nothing to work with or dig into, just a lot of questions with no answers. Weird to dickride someone you barely know anything about is what I'm arguing.

I'm just as skeptical of Greek sources but there's a lot more to work with there regardless.

File: BC225GallicMercenaryAllenReynolds2001.jpg (70KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x404px

>>2774541
>its much harder to keep an army of mercenaries intact for 10 years than it is to raise an army of people who want to protect their homeland.
Yes, that's the secret about warfare that Fabius realized: he didn't need to keep funneling inexperienced conscripts into Hannibal's insurmountable meat grinder, he only had to last longer than Hannibal could. But the reason Rome had to resort to those tactics was precisely because their citizen-levies couldn't stand against Hannibal's full time professionals without getting completely humiliated in the field.

>are you kidding? none of that aids you in warfare
Read a book. Hannibal considered the Celts to be some of his most valuable warriors and had nearly 30,000 Gaesatae, elite Celtic warriors who went into battle nude and hopped up on combat drugs, who so impressed Hannibal that he made them his personal body guard.

>>2762378
Being historically illiterate? Failure.

>>2765588
This is just greekaboo fanfic, none of this can be verified other than the circular argument of ancient literary sources who were known to embellish.

>>2774745
Didnt like 20% of roman male population die at Cannae?

>>2774980
I couldn't source it for you but I am pretty sure you're right, it was about 1/5th of their entire population of fighting age.

It got so bad in the city that Fabius had to ban competitive mourning and professional mourners.

>>2775021
Yea Ive read Livy, the mood of the Punic wars is pretty sullen and seemed like Rome was going in blind for most of the better part of both wars.

>>2761747
the only battle he lost was against malaria and time.

>>2761747
literally the only reason people fellate each other over him is because of MUH ELEPHANTS


> WHOAH DUDE AN ANCIENT GREEK RODE ELEPHANTS INTO BATTTLE LOL MUH ELEPHANTS

>>2773878
You have a pretty obvious ax to grind, your lack of self-awareness is funny considering this thread was originally about ragging on Alexander to begin with.

>>2761747
My French friend from Grenoble once proudly told me the story of how Alexander crossed the Alps with his elephants.

I've asked him whom Alexander was fighting at the time but he couldn't tell me.

>>2775818
Plenty of Kangs used elephants

>>2775851
That's what (((they))) want you to think. Alexander conquered Gaul before the (((Romans))) and (((Caesar))) wanted to steal his credit.

>>2774199
Yeah... no. Hannibal only lost to Zama because absolutely everything that was for him went against him.

Raw recruits freshly recruited, don't know even how to hold a sword, untrained elephants freshly picked, the Numidian betrayal, the Senate forcing him to fight Scipio immediately instead of picking a suitable terrain. And even with all that the battle was hard fought and had a chance to swung his way instead.

What Alexander accomplished was way more than Hannibal achieved or dreamed of achieving, but what Hannibal did was way more impressive than what Alexander did - both as an administrator and as a military leader.

>>2776229
nice (((alexander))) revisionism there. your nose is showing btw.

For those interested in *actual* history, it's well known that ceasar was vehemently against the jews (which owned the roman senate at the time) and had also bribed the nobles of (((gaul))) to commit atrocities against his soldiers and other acts of terrorism, which is why he had to invade the place to begin with. Sound familiar? Yep. Jews playing both sides as always.

File: 1465902672510.jpg (12KB, 180x153px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 180x153px

>>2774788
It's 10x more likely to be true if it involved Alexander.

File: 1441115027562.png (439KB, 910x898px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 910x898px

>mfw two millenia later and Iranians are still butthurt about based alex

>>2765798
Alexander the Mediocre would have taken that army and ruled Greece for fifty years.

Alexander the Great conquered the world.

File: 1433286663164.jpg (36KB, 811x680px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 811x680px

>>2777284
>mfw a Turk thinking he's Greek is trying to stir shit up again on /his/

>>2777401
I'm a Macedon buddy. Say that to my face and I'll beat u up

File: 1335067596134.jpg (217KB, 633x639px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 633x639px

>>2777470
>I'm a Macedon
But Alexander wasn't a Slav.

>>2777476
>But Alexander wasn't a Slav.
That's right, he was a macedon like me.
My ancestors were kings of the world. Can you say the same?

>>2777479
>>2777470
>WE

>>2765798
Philip groomed the army
Alexander used it, in a way which Philip never could've done.

>>2765798
>If it wasn't for his revolutionary military reforms which allowed him to unify Greece, and his providing of the literal best of the best education for Alexander, then Alexander would not have been any where nearly as successful as he was
You can say that about anyone, there is always potential out there, just like there are always failures, it's about how you use the things you were given, which Alexander did beyond greatly. Using if's and but's is ignorant of the achievements, or lack thereof, which have been given to us throughout a miltitude of individuals thoughout history, but few rival Alexander's.

>>2761759
>middle easterners BTFO

he literally couldn't even invade Arabia, so that bit is irrelevant

>30 years

I should've stopped reading there, it took him only 10 years (essentially the only years he lived as king), you suck at history, get the fuck out of /his/.

>>2768503
history is filled with children of great leaders being handed a golden opportunity then completely squandering it

>>2778351
Arabia was a worthless desert before the discovery of oil, or rather, the discovery of its usefulness, why would anyone bother conquering Arabia, especially Alexander?

File: IMG_0512.png (139KB, 500x566px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x566px

>>2777479
Were you squatting and shitfaced when you posted this?

File: 1481049830694.jpg (40KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 657x527px

>>2761872
>The Greeks were in no position to become a massive empire

>>2772470
>his talent for placating hordes of terrified Romans by taking and passing religious tests is truly legendary.
What

>>2778416
He planned on conquering them, but he died in the process. He also planned on going against Carthage and Rome, if I remember correctly

File: be89baf9c3b2af5392d2602263a1c05b.jpg (39KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 564x423px

>>2775166
It was sullen because of how hopeless the situation seemed to them. Every other leader in Rome wanted to raise an even bigger army and be the one to finally defeat Hannibal. Fabius's cognomen, Cunctator, means "delayer" or "procrastinator" and at first was used by his enemies to ridicule him for believing that there was another way to beat Hannibal without throwing soldiers at him, until they all got their asses spanked by Hannibal and Fabius was the one stuck cleaning up the mess.

>>2778587
In the 3rd century BC, having your city sacked meant total devastation, all the men of fighting age slaughtered, all the women of breeding age raped, anything that isn't nailed down gets stolen, your leaders made to prostrate themselves before their conqueror. It was the end of your world, and Romans were rightly terrified out of their minds when Hannibal curb-stomped progressively larger armies and most leaders were completely at a loss for what to do.

When Fabius is brought back in the first thing he does is lead a bunch of religious rituals which do the job of convincing the Romans that the gods still favor them in their time of tribulation and that they would eventually triumph. There was no real separation of church and state in those days, you literally paid your taxes as an offering at the Temple of Jupiter (which is why Jews and Christians hated it). Making people take tests proving that they knew the rituals and scriptures of the day worked for the same reason why politicians today quote scripture; it shows the people that your leader was a man of their religion, and was therefore someone you could trust.

It was only much later in history when taking religious tests spiraled out of control in the early modern era that people realized that maybe they're not such a good idea for governments to be requiring.

File: cyrus-cylinder-photo1.jpg (804KB, 3461x2363px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 3461x2363px

>>2775841
>You have a pretty obvious ax to grind
You're darn fucking right I have an ax to grind: there are invaders coming to this board, shitting up the conversations, flying off into a ravenous snit every time somebody offers an opinion which doesn't totally validate their world view, and their idea of "winning" a conversation involves mindlessly ridiculing anyone they disagree with, instead of posting facts and counter-logic in an impartial manner. I remember when bronies were the annoying spergs that everyone hated because they felt a burning need to inject every fucking thread with their bullshit. But we all know which board nowadays is the one causing all the issues, and I do not want visitors from that board feeling welcome unless they can handle themselves like everyone else, for the same reasons I'd be pissed if there were bronies still inundating 4chan with their bullshit and couldn't be made to stay in their containment board.

I think OP asked a valid question, why *do* the plebs lionize Alexander? And how come these same plebs can't be made to appreciate Cyrus when he was objectively better in every way? Not only did he achieve great victory in battle and was loved by his men AND his people, literally saved the Judeo-Christian religion from total eradication and wrote the first charter on human rights in history, but he built an empire that lasted for centuries until it was ruthlessly torn down by Alexander, whose own empire collapsed into squabbling successor states the moment he died.

Is it because in their minds Cyrus is a Persian and therefore a "shitskin", and don't think it's fair when we analyze them in the same same context that we analyze "white" people even though those are modern social constructs? It's the only explanation because they're like the tumblrinas of 4chan, in a near continuous state of being triggered because of people breaking *their* rules

>>2778706
>tfw Carthage and Rome could have united against Alexander in the greatest war pre WWI
>tfw Scipio and Hannibal would never join together over 100 years after it began to beat Alexanders successors and claim an end to the true first Hundred Years' War
>tfw Alex's untimely death denied us from the best timeline
Hold me lads.

>>2772510

this is some fucking youtube comment level shit m9

neck yourself

>>2772644

Alexander the man has had a more enduring legacy than any other person in history including that little Jew from Nazareth

>>2775851

Alexander didn't cross the alps you tard he crossed the Hindu Kush which is much harder

File: Zeus_Ammon_(Antikensammlung_München).jpg (425KB, 1464x1766px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1464x1766px

>tfw Alexander's remains have been missing for thousands of years and will never be found

was he divine lads?

>>2772739
>which also saved the asses of the Indians, clearly, because they didn't push him on this decision at all.
Jesus Christ he had very little chance of conquering India. It's not the same as Persia.

>>2781400
>Alexander the man has had a more enduring legacy than any other person in history including that little Jew from Nazareth

>Muhammad
>Buddha
>Abraham

>>2778434
No, I was actually reading Aristotle and Plato and all my ancestors greatest works.
Then I went to my local amphitheatre to watch Oresteia.
Then I went to my museum to see my ancestors' armour recreated.
Greeks hate us because we stayed true to our traditions instead of squatting round campfires and banging sticks together like those Turks

>>2781491

Muhammad is less than 1400 years old.

Buddhism spread largely through the conquests of Alexander.

Abraham is a mythological nobody from Jewish antiquity. Moses would have been a better argument.

But name the deeds of all those men, and then compare them to the deeds of Alexander. I don't think it's much of a contest. Alexander was enormous in Greek and non-Greek folklore alike. The Alexander Romance is probably the single most circulated and widely read text besides the Christian Bible, and Alexander hasn't had a world religion built around him to promote his legend. It endures on its own merits.

>>2781538
>Buddhism spread largely through the conquests of Alexander.
I think for SEA (where they remained Buddhist) it was Buddha who converted them.
>But name the deeds of all those men, and then compare them to the deeds of Alexander.
Honestly speaking you're right for Abraham and Buddha but Muhammad started out as an orphan from a once powerful tribe and created a legacy that stretched from Spain to Afghanistan.

File: Alexander-the-Great.jpg (37KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x533px

Friendly reminder than when Genghis Khan's grandson wanted to introduce reforms opposed to his grandfather's decrees, the higher authority he invoked to do so was Alexander the Great.

>>2781551

Muhammad was a great leader and a genius with incredible foresight, but keep in mind that at the time of his exile from Mecca, Alexander was and had long been part of Arabian folklore. Not for nothing was he put into the Koran as Dhul-Qarnayn, the legendary hero chosen by Allah to confine the hordes of Gog and Magog

File: d49426303301e3c5035fcdfb947a2fdb.jpg (150KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 736x981px

>>2781551

Interestingly enough the first human images of the Buddha only began to emerge after Alexander's conquests had brought Greek craftsmen and sculptors far to the east. Before then, Buddha had been represented purely symbolically (as Muhammad is today); when it was desired to produce a likeness of Buddha, the sculptors had no model to work from. In some cases they gave him the likeness of Apollo; in others, they reproduced the image of Alexander himself, complete with the melting glance and indrawn chin.

>>2781421

No just irrelevant

>>2781661

The most famous and accomplished person in human history, and his bones are nowhere to be found. I find that rather mysterious.

>>2781566
>great leader
>genius
The words you're looking for are : sub-human shitskin and pedophile

>>2782272
Nobody's arguing that he did shitty things.
But he undeniably changed the face of the world as we know it- good or bad. He's easily within the top 5 of all influential men that ever existed in the duration of humanity.

File: IMG_0681.jpg (121KB, 640x423px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 640x423px

What did Alexander think of Babylon?

Is it true that he wanted to make it his capital?

File: isisshocked.jpg (123KB, 700x1047px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 700x1047px

>>2782286
>But he undeniably changed the face of the world as we know it
Oh, that is without question, he certainly did, but he was no Jesus when it came right down to what he did and what he preached, and that can be reflected in the people who follow his teachings.

>>2782286
He's easily 2nd or 1st along with Jesus christ, they both heavily influenced the planet for thousands of years.

>>2782272

Shitty things were normal at those times, curb your autism kid, by those time's standards he was actually a pretty decent dude (spared too many enemies, led to him being called weak) He exterminated one of the tribes outside of Medina because of their betrayal under directions from one of their defected chiefs because too many tribesmen were revolting against him because of his excessive leniency with opposition.

But yeah, he still did shitty things (pedophilia was essentially normal in alot of the world at the time, though. Don't forget how Alexander the great groomed young teenage fembois in his court just like his father did)

>>2782387
Muhammad was pretty based in comparison to the Arabs then

>>2761747
>Be Alexander
>conquer half of your known world by the time your're 32
>autists around the world still remember & argue about you on anonymous image boards 2,300 years later.

Don't act like there's a huge list of World leaders whose achievements better deserves them the title "the Great". His cultural impact alone drove the ideologies of empires centuries afterwards. I'd at least like to hear who OP thinks should be interchanged with Alexander so his opinion can justifiably be thrown in the trash.

>>2761942
He was turkish you mean

>>2782636
Muhammad (pbuh)

>>2761942
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP2u4wJcnS0

>>2782678
True. Mohammed was objectively Greater than Alexander

>>2782689
Mohamed literally didn't even conquer past the arabian peninsular

>>2782693
And Alexander never managed to conquer Arabia. Proof that Mohammed was greater

>>2782721
wtf I love islam now!

>>2761942
quite sure he was a proud dutch man

>>2782693
>Mohamed literally didn't even conquer past the arabian peninsular
But he left behind a legacy that conquered far past that.

Apples to oranges desu

>>2782780
>But he left behind a legacy that conquered far past that.
So did Alexander's father. That means that Phillip II did more than mohamed?

>>2782784
>So did Alexander's father. That means that Phillip II did more than mohamed?
Do people wake up in the morning and say Philips name in prayer? Did Phillip 2 cause the people of the Levant, north Africa and Arabia to unite under one language causing greater cultural exchange than seen before? Does Phillip II have followers from nearly every country on the planet.

Most normies don't even know about Phillip.

>>2782807
>Do people wake up in the morning and say Philips name in prayer? Did Phillip 2 cause the people of the Levant, north Africa and Arabia to unite under one language causing greater cultural exchange than seen before? Does Phillip II have followers from nearly every country on the planet.
Mohamed did none of that, his successors did.

>>2782928
meanwhile, Alexander's successors squandered his fortune in internecine conflicts until they were all absorbed by either the Romans or the Parthians.

Isn't the true measure of a ruler the sort of society he leaves behind when he's gone?

>>2774202
this made me laugh harder than it should have

>>2783140
Roman legionaries were famously uneven in terms of skill. You had some legions which were legitimately bad ass and composed mostly of hardened vets arranged in a highly meritocratic fashion, and you had legions which were citizen-levies led by corrupt officers whose families purchased the rank for them, who didn't know their asses from their elbows and got curbstomped in the field. Rome was as much known for its insane losses as they were for their victories.

>>2762034
>USA
All the fucking spics

>>2782984
Alexander's successors spread Greek culture to India and indeed did have a wide cultural exchange due to Hellenization, though not to the extent of "everyone in the levant now speaks Arab"...

>>2783303
Of course they did, considering some of them were the overlords and masters of these realms for centuries. But de-Hellenization was swift and severe when it occurred, the Greeks were widely hated across the middle east for being repressive theocrats and the society which arose out of its ashes experienced a golden age and was a world leader in terms of prosperity and scientific achievement at a time when Europe was still a miasma of warring Germanic tribes

>>2783389
>miasma of warring germanic tribes
>what is the roman republic
>what is Greece, Thrace, and Macedonia
>what is Punic civilization in Spain

I agree with your sentiment that the east was bigger and badder than the west for thousands of years through the assyrians, persians, hellenes, persians again, etc. but by the time the second Persian resurgence is happening Europe is having its own Latin/Hellenes thing going that was even more advanced in science and engineering, so this whole idea of the east being better than the west ends when Rome starts taking over, but even before that there are multiple advanced civilizations in europe as well, and the "less civilized" Europeans actually decided writing down and preserving their history was important whereas the persians are desperate for decent sources throughout the entire ancient period. It's sad when a supposedly inferior civilization is the main source you have for the supposedly superior civilization that wasn't as successful at passing down historical knowledge and fostering an intellectual community. If they were so damn enlightened we'd probably know more about them, but this probably has a lot to do with muslims and mongols. Even before that though the sources in Persian accounts are usually heresay and rumor someone picked up in a court or something, not a lot of solid evidence to work with.

File: 1492793561404.png (513KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 800x600px

>>2765888
Because evidently he is quoted as saying, "If my campaign fails, my logisticians know they will be the first I blame."

Knowing that his MO is to kill people who displease him, that's kind of a strong argument to supply the king efficiently and guard his supply routes while he's is off gallivanting in Persia and India.

>>2782721

Arabia was a bunch of disorderly tribes using stone tools. Persia was a fucking empire.

Alexander would have conquered the Arabian peninsula with ease.

>>2783685
>Achaemenids failed to do it
>Assyrians failed to do it
>Romans failed to do it
>When Arabs stopped killing eachother over goat disputes and teamed up they quickly became a global superpower
>But Alexander is gonna do it

I think if Alexander went into Arabia it would've been the end of his win-streak.

He was a war monger, that's for sure.

>>2783721
You don't get Alexander if you think like that, they would never be able to pull an Arminius on someone like him.

>>2783766
He can easily subjugate coastal cities in the west and eastern coast, but he can't do shit in the Hejaz mountains/Yemen and if he chimped out and tried to get into the huge desert swathe in the middle of the peninsula his army would've probably died of thirst and became a legend.

>>2779482
>can't be made to appreciate Cyrus when he was objectively better in every way
The people you're arguing against acknowledged the merits of Cyrus's accomplishments and agreed with you that he is less well known. What you're interpreting as racist hero worship of alexander the great is them not conceding that Cyrus's merits erase Alexander's because their societies conflicted in the course of history. This isn't a zero sum game, they can both be Great, and they both were, even though Alexander conquered Persia. The Greco-Persian war was the Achaemenids attempting to colonize the hellenistic region, and Alexander conquered greece before he went any further, and might even have gone so far as to style himself after Cyrus. The cylinder you posted is all about how Cyrus was righteous for conquering the assyrians because he proposed himself to be a superior ruler, and accused them of having lost the right to rule through mismanagement, by which they had lost to him in war.

>>2783587
Also he clearly knew the value of logistics. He's not killing his officers, soldiers, or advisors, its the supply lines that need their shit together first and foremost.

>>2761930
t. Darius

>>2783721
>it would've been the end of his win-streak.
Which is why he didn't do it. It's like saying he was so good he could steamroll eastern europe and invade russia in the winter, even though napoleon and hitler couldn't.

No, that's not it at all. He wasn't going to try to conquer arabia because conquering an inhospitable desert of violent nomads was of no use to him, and his goal was to conquer places he could conquer with the resources available.

>>2783889
if there was actually more detail about his actions people would revere him but there's nothing to work with. We know the strategy and tactics of each of Alexander's battles so there's a lot to ooze over, particularly for military history buffs which view alexander as like the granddaddy of tactics. He wasn't the first guy to have stunning tactical victories, but he's the first guy that has all of his stunning tactical victories written down and described for us to read, whereas there is nothing of the sort on Cyrus. People start the book of tactics with Alexander because there's nothing written before that is as effective of an example, hence why everyone after him looked to him as a godly figure because he's the one they actually have a lot of writing to work with. If we had more information about the specifics of what he did we would be more inclined to revere him, but because we don't there's not much to go on.

>>2783924
Except he would've done it, for goods and such, like spices, if there is one thing Alexander would never fear, it's deserts.

Was Alex gay?

>>2783899
He killed Parmenion, his second in command strategos who helped him secure the throne and at the time of his death was holding Alexander's supply lines.

>>2784347
There was no gay back there, only masculine and effeminate. Alexander was known to have a few fuckbois, including one who was of great beauty named Bagoas. His father also had many boy lovers, one of them was abused by him. He eventually took revenge by murdering Philip.

>>2783924

He was literally going to launch his invasion of Arabia three days before he died you retard. He invaded India purely to reach the ends of the earth. It didn't profit him in the slightest, but he still did it. Likewise with the march through Gedrosia.

>>2784358

Paremenion was killed to prevent the blood feud after Philotas had been implicated in a plot to murder Alexander. Paremenion was probably complacent as well, and it was too dangerous to leave him in his current position.

>>2784511
>India
>the ends of the earth

How did he not know what China was?

Alexander basically walked around and slapped every single person he could find that was worth the effort with his dick and then promptly died a party-crazed alcoholic, avoiding the inevitable troubles of actually having to rule any of it. I legitimately think he just did it for the thrills and to be remembered, he probably would have been a pretty shit administrator as he aged had he not died, he had a lust for battle and wasn't the kind of guy that wanted to sit in one place and rule. That's probably way he drank so much, because he just wanted to go out and slap more people with his dick.

what a life.

>>2784572

Their geographic notions were incomplete. Alexander's cartographers were literally drawing the maps as he marched on.

>>2784583

His alcoholism has been greatly exaggerated by Athenian slanderers. He and everyone else in the army drank heavily during the Bactrian campaign because it was not safe to drink the water in those parts.

>>2784683
>t. FRYOMIDF

Based anti-Al*xander thread

>>2785045

T. Arrian, Plutarch and every other respectable historian you stupid nigger

>>2785066

Kill yourself

>>2785087
expecting me to lend credence to (((plutarch))) and (((arrian)))

good troll

>>2784583
>died a party crazed alcoholic
t. Cassander

>>2784347
probably desu

>>2761747
He was Gr8 M8.

>>2761978
Fuck Tyre. Coulda let him worship in their Temple, but noooooo, had to fuck with the bull. Got the horns.

>>2785265

T. John Green

>>2785323

Kek