ITT People who don't deserve the title of "great" and why

>Alexander
>the
>great

The title of 'The Great' was just shorthand for the Persian 'King of Kings'. Same reason why Cyrus and Xerxes have the same title.

Ashoka

He did very little for the Maurya Empire compared to his grandfather, Chandragupta, who conquered huge amounts of land in India and some parts of the Seleucids.

>rewrite history

Maybe he's half Turkish

That's not remotely true at all.

No it wasn't. The main title the Persian rulers took was "the Great King". We don't affix the Great as an epithet to all of the Achaemenid dynasty rulers, just Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great, and Xerxes the Great. Same way we don't do it with all the Arsacid dynasty kings or Sassanid ones; only exceptional ones.

>responding to a bait post with more /pol/ tier bullshit

Kasier Willy 2 deserves the title.

More like Greatest for Alexander.

Pompey, has a lucky habit of taking command near the end of wars and usurping better generals like Lucullus and taking the credit for their hard work. Then manages to completely fuck up the civil war against Caesar.

Ashoka was 'Great' for his contributions to Buddhism, not his Empire.

I'd say Cyrus would be a better candidate for "greatest' then Alex. All he has is conquering going for him and nothing else.

Alexander is the source of butthurt all the persian diaspora. Which is enough to make him Great.

Ignoring the shit coming out of your mouth, the butthurt of the Persian diaspora has more to do with Arabs then Greeks, stop projecting.

Arabs respect and admire Alexander anyways.
Zoroaastrian genocide best day of my life

t. Turk

Thank you for the amazing contribution and intelligent discourse Veeky Forums strives for, where would we be without the shitposters from /pol? Who knows.

I'm a Byzaboo. You deserve everything you get for attacking Justinian (pbuh).

>Hellenisation
>Not among the most important advents in the western world.
Washington DC would like to have a word with you son.

(Not that he didn't entirely fail to Hellenize the Arabs.)

>Romans
>Hellenic
Top kek.

>You
I'm not Persian.
>attacking Justinian
The war with Khosrau I or Kavad I? Because relations were already strained between Byzantine and Persia, the Ostrogoths were iniating talks to start a two front war and Justinian and ceased his promised tribute from the last war he was passed on from his uncle and predecessor.

*had ceased

WTF do you think that architecture came from son?

The Greek impact on Rome was incredible, and probably wouldn't have happened if Alexander hadn't made them look so great. That hellenistic influence continues to this damned day - not just in architecture, but in philosophy and politics, and to a lesser degree, western culture in general.

Not that Alex isn't overrated in general, but ya best just be trollin' at this point.

Talk shit (about Saint Justinian)
Get hit (by ayrabs)

You're making the mistake of assuming Greece having an influence on Rome as equating that falsely with all of Roman achievements and legacies themselves. Please stop.

Those same Arabs wrecked the Byzantines too, so...?

>Saint Justinian
>was a huge faggot to Belisarius
Nope

That'd like suggesting I mean to say that America's accomplishments are all null and void because they were influenced by some Roman architecture that was in turn influenced by the Greeks.

Not saying that at all, just saying that the Greek impact, and sustained impact, on western civilization has been impressive, and continues relatively undaunted... And that a large part of the reason for that is probably the fascination with a young man who, however falsely, is credited for conquering the known world.

>but in philosophy and politics,
but user the concept of republics which I think you implied with 'politics' existed elsewhere without hellenic influences.

>Arab culture
>confined

Seeing Europe will break your heart.

Roman architecture is influenced by Greek architecture, it also borrows heavily from the Celtics, and Carthaginians and even influence from the Parthians and Persians. Its not a 1:1 of Greek engineering or craftmanship and certainly is more advanced.

Greeks had little influence on Roman politics, legal system, or law. The Romans in this respect were well beyond the Grecians on this.

And democracy was invented the first time someone said "let's draw straws", or the equivalent, which I'm sure far predated anyone living in Athens.

However, the terminology we use for most of our governmental permissions is greco-roman in origin, so we can fairly safely ascribe the particular origins of those particular ideas within our political establishment to those philosophies, or at least claim influence from said, or aspiration towards said.

Rome would not have existed without Greece.

Rome's cultural awakening started with Latin translations of Greek epics.
Rome's entire identity was forged around a connection to Greece's heroic age.

>Republican system of Rome: landed educated aristocrats of various ranks and backgrounds commune on decisions that decide civil and military matters via consensus; this also includes representatives who vote and act in the interest of the common freemen of the population
>Democratic system of Greece: landed educated aristocrats of various ranks and backgrounds simply majority vote on any and all decisions; common men have no say or voice in any matter usually

Romans identify with the Trojans themselves, not the Greeks. And they were well aware of the liberties taking by Homer's epic, actual historical Trojans spoke a different language as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language

>Rome would not have existed without Greece
Yes it would've? Latins and Italics were developing in Italy well before the Greeks were trying to colonize the southern regions of the country.

>Grecians
If you're going to speak English call them Greeks.
If you want to be historical or PC call them Hellenes.

What are you calling them Grecians for?

Rome's early politics were heavily influenced by Greece. You think the Roman's just invented the senate out of thin air?
Or jury trials?
Or lawyers?
Or jurors?

What do you think inspired the dual Pro-Consuls? It was Sparta's two kings.

>Jury trials
Not from the Greeks.
>Lawyers
Not from the Greeks.
>Jurors
Not from the Greeks.

>What do you think inspired the dual Pro-Consuls?
Nothing to do with Spartans.

>Romans identify with the Trojans themselves, not the Greeks.
Yes, because they could not be Greek. They wanted the prestige that came from being Greece's foe, and symbolic equal.

>And they were well aware of the liberties taking by Homer's epic, actual historical Trojans spoke a different language as well.
So what?

>Yes it would've? Latins and Italics were developing in Italy well before the Greeks were trying to colonize the southern regions of the country.

Rome and the Latins were the smallest of tiny polities. Without Greek influence there is no reason to believe they'd have developed the culture or institutions they did.
Rome was an Etruscan vassal and then it was a Greekboo city.

There was absolutely no Hellenistic influence in Roman culture, thought, religion, politics, or architecture. The Romans didn't even know they existed, and had completely forgotten them. Everything the Romans came up with was completely original work with no previous influence from any other civilization in history. The Roman Empire, was in fact, manifested out of thin air by divine will, and thus, unlike every other civilization in all of recorded history, both before and since, was completely original and not influenced in anyway by any other culture before it. Fuck Alexander, fuck Homer, fuck Plato, and fuck Greece in general.

(This thread, in a nutshell.)

>Yes, because they could not be Greek.
They didn't want to be Greek, stop pulling this baseless claim out of your ass.
>So what?
Just further proof the nonsensical claim Romans wanted to be Greeks is utterly fabricated invented chest-beating.
>Rome and Latins were the smallest of tiny polities.
No, they weren't. Their populations were always on par with the Italics, their kin, and that's saying something since Latins were more often at war with each other or Celtic invaders then any other tribes of people in Italy.

>Without Greek influence there is no reason to believe they developed the culture or institutionss they did
There is plenty of reason for that. The entire reason the concept of Hoplite warfare was disregarded because Rome found its own feet of disregarding Hellenistic influence in its civil, military, and social stratas.

So evidence points to the contrary of your claim.

>Rome was an Etruscan vassal
And Rome overthrew the Etruscans, what's your point?
>Greekboo city
It was not.

This is a sarcastic post, right?

>Janus
>Quirinus
>Mithra
>Lares
>Dis Pater
>Orcus
>Liber
>Divus Julius
>Divus Augustus

I never said there wasn't a Greek influence but you are definitely overblowing it with the claim they were 100% influenced by the Greeks.

The single most important Roman god on the Roman pantheon was Janus, who has no Greek counterpart.

Think it was less "trying to be Greek" and more that they already were. There's a lotta Greek blood running through the Roman aristocracy throughout its history, so it's not a matter of "Greekaboo" as much as it is simple passing down of existing culture and updating it slightly for a new, grander outlook.

Otherwise you might as well call Americans German, French, and British'aboos, due to all their cultural similarities, simply because they came about later in history.

>There's a lotta Greek blood running through the Roman aristocracy throughout its history
No there isn't.

Greeks had nothing to do with the founding or establishment of Rome when it was first came to be by the Latin tribe that would end up being the "Romans". Greeks in Italy were literally mainly grouped the South and Sicily and Sardina, nowhere else in Italy. The major families like the Scipios and Julia were some of the oldest and most aristocratic never made any claims of being Greek descendants as well, but rather from Venus.

The Etruscans and the Greeks were so interbred that their DNA may have been the source for the legend of the Gordian Knot, and even Alexander's sword couldn't cut through it.

Though it is true, it is something later Romans would deny, so there's some of "not wanting" to be Greeks in there, but I suspect it has more to do with not wanting to be associated with the fat poet- philosophers of a conquered people, than denial of most likely only having to go back two or three generations before finding a common ancestor between any given Greek and any given Roman.

>The Etruscans and the Greeks were so interbred
Sure, but not with the Latins or Italic tribes of Italy they weren't.
>Thought it is true
It is not true. There is no proof of it, there is no evidence of it, and there is certainly no precedence of it either.

Now let's return: Greeks were only confined with their colonies of Magna Greacia in the very most southern region of Italy, particularly around the coastal areas and most of Sicilia. There are only mainly Italic and Latin tribes populating the rest of Italy, and the Latins were the only people who founded Rome and its social establishments and population.

None of what you are claiming is true.

Greek genetics in modern Italy is literally only observed mainly in Sicilians and parts of southern Italy which unsurprisingly correspond to where the Greek colonization efforts were in the first place.

Greek-Italians are also VERY easy to spot with their deeper olive-skinned complexions, in terms of phenotype. And I have never heard of a claim like said of Greeks being involved in Roman race or the founding of Rome in any academic article or source.

Rome was founded by Herakles.

Romans were Greeks.

Fun fact: Greeks claim Ahura Mazda is the Persian version of Zeus. They also claim Persians are the descendants of Persis and a brother race to the Greeks.

>We wuz Aryans n' shit too!

>>His legacy was wiped out by the Arabs
Like he could be blamed for that and you're also implying that the Christian ethos and culture is not completely antithetical to pagan hellenism. It was very different, even if they shared the same language and had some continuity.

>Rome was founded by Aeneas

>Romans were Turks

ftfy

You want to know another fun fact like in my post here? The Romanization and Latin name of Herakles is better known as Hercules then its original Greek version.

At the same Christian religious movements were really building up fervor and dominion over Roman and Byzantine politics and theological studies, pagan Greco-Roman philosophical and mathematical studies and schools of thoughts were getting shut down for awhile.

One of the main reasons Khosrau I aka Khosrau the Great or as he's more famously known, as Khosrau the "Just", was because he opened up new schools for pagan Greek and Roman philosophers to resume their work in Persia, which is how he got the title of "Philosopher King".

>google this
>they actually do

>Perseus accidentally kills own grandaddy
>exiles himself in far away land that is asia minor
>has a son named Perses
>son goes on to be progenitor of the Persians

Justinian "I really wish my dominatrix wife who literally rules my asshole would whip me and call me a bad, bad boy more" the First

>Greek columns
>extreme Roman engineering

pick one

WE

>Had his whole army handed to him and was already in a position of power

People don't understand this about fredrick the great, william the bastard, napoleon

All people who get handed big ass armies and neighbor decaying empires. Adolphus Gustavus revolutionized warfare after getting handed a shit tier army, mean while alexander 'made' the phalanx and napoelon the bayonet charge

At the height of the Roman Republic and even during the beginning of the Roman Empire under the Julio-Claudian line (from Octavian/Augustus to Nero), if a Roman Patrician wished to reach the highest levels of education, they attended the schools in Greece. Marcus Tulius Cicero, for example, one of Rome's leading philosophers, constitutionalists and one of the politicians aligned against Julius Caesar, introduced the ‘common’ Roman to the Greek philosophers by translating many of the texts from Greek to Latin.

Julius Caesar and his general, Mark Antony, were known to have trained their legions in the Spartan manner; idolizing their fortitude. Caesar and his nephew/adopted son Augustus revered Alexander the Great and during their stays in Alexandria, went to the tomb and paid their respects to the Greek general. It is even rumored that Caesar wept by a statue of Alexander feeling embarrassed that Alexander had accomplished so much more at a younger age than Caesar.

Greeks also helped protect the Roman Empire during its infancy. Spartan soldiers were often called up to assist Roman legions in their battles against the Middle-Eastern Parthian Empire.

Caesar's last words are not, "E tu, Brute?" they are "kai su, teknon?" in otherwords, Greek for "and you, son?"

Do you think any of this would be the case if Alexander hadn't been credited for conquering the world before he was 33?

Debatable, but don't give me this shit that Rome grew up in some sort of vacuum and just happened to stick their gods in Olympus by coincidence. (Unless you are suggesting the gods and the place actually existed, but I can't help you then.)

How does Romans recognizing that Greeks made for excellent tutors and teachers equate to claiming they are Greek?

>Janus
>debatable
It isn't. Its absolute fact.

>Caesar's last words are not, "E tu, Brute?" they are "kai su, teknon?" in otherwords, Greek for "and you, son?"
>Suetonius claims
>claims

>Plutarch also reports that Caesar said nothing and merely pulled his toga over his head when he saw Brutus among the conspirators.
This is getting silly, his last words aren't even reliably known or verified even then which a lot of Roman writers have mentioned so claiming Greeks have even that is fucking reaching the heights of absolute hilarity.

>Roman historiography
>reliable

I dunno, even if the ancient Inca and the Romans had several gods sharing the same name and function, and both had their home in a place called Olympus, I'd be rather suspicious of some cultural influence, even if it'd take ancient aliens to get them together.

Given that the Greeks and the Romans were in near geographic locations, I don't see why it's suddenly so far fetched.

But no, they wouldn't claim they were Greek, during the height of the empire, quite the opposite. Come the late empire, all the literature suggests they thought of them as weak intellectuals and sophists, even if they clearly respected their more warlike ancestors.

Well, unless you happened to be there...

>Breaking up into a bunch of smaller states doesn't count as continue

It does actually. Greeks dominated the region through the Ptolemies after the regional powers consolidated and their culture grew. The only reason why, as you say, Arabs came and transformed all later was because the Greeks (i.e..Macedonians) actually imposed Hellenization on foreign peoples and it stuck with them for a long long time.

>The Persians were getting theit shit slapped silly my the Greeks prior to Alexander

Macedonia was a Persian client state since Alexander I

> it was his ambition that led to a potential mutiny and possibly his death

His ambition is why we all know who he is, and what he did. No one will remember this thread in 30min.

> Declared war on everyone around
> Got beaten many times
> East Prussia is occupied by Russians
> Berlin is occupied by Russians
> Everything is lost
> Suddenly Russian Empress dies, the next Emperor is retarded Prussoboo kid
> Somehow managed to make a White Peace
> Before that, treacherously attacked Austria during dynastic turmoil and succession wars
> After that, conspired with Russia and Austria to partition Poland
Can't see anything "great" here.

consider suicide now, butthurt pole

>There were later allegations that the Russian commander Count Tottleben had received a personal bribe from the Prussians to spare the city, and he was subsequently tried and found guilty of being a spy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Berlin

>Then, in January 1762, Frederick received the news that the Empress Elizabeth of Russia had died on 5 January: "The Messalina of the North is dead. Morta la Bestia", wrote Frederick on 22 January.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_House_of_Brandenburg

>Elizabeth of Russia
>most humane Russian Monarch
>Frederick calls her "Messalina" because he lost the war

Seems like if the Russians didn't spare them out of pity, there'd be no Germany today. Super pathetic actually.

bamp

You forgot:

>Is one of the greatest military commanders in history who marvellously won battles against all odds, messed with multiple great powers at the same time while being ruler of an indefensible, poor backwater shithole and led it on the path of becoming a great power in Europe

>Greek historiography
>reliable

>But when the Arabs came they completely transformed the middle east and essentially undone all the hellenization
900 years after his death. That's like judging Genghis Khan based on the state of Mongolia today

If you're referring to Hellenistic influence after Alexdander's death in the Near East and Western Asia, it was pretty much all gone outside of certain former Seleucid cities in the Levant. Like someone else mentioned, the Arsacids were Greekboos for about the first half of their reign but the increasing unpopularity of it saw them reverting to more traditional Iranic paganism, abandoning of Greek being used as a court language, and the return and revival of Zoroastrianism.

And the Sassanids annihilated whatever vestiges were left in their expansive territories after they defeated the Arsacids.

>implying you wouldn't want her to whip you and call you a bad boy as you lick her royal feet

you a fag or something mate?

Are you fucking retarded?

Are you fucking retarded?

BS. Everything he did was great.
He only needed a small loan of a million phalangites.

>Romans identify with the Trojans
You mean the people from those epic that literally only Greece gave two asses about? You just admitted Rome wanted to secure itself a place in the Hellenic world so badly that it concocted a foundation myth based on Greek mythology and history. Nice work.

>only Greece gave two asses about
Wrong.

>Trojans spoke a different language then the Greeks
>Had a different a culture then the Greeks
>Were enemies of the Greeks
>Roman claims ancestry from the Trojans
>Troy is now apparently Greek
Retard

>"Great"
>"Britain"
inb4 butthurt anglo saying big island

Yeah? How much pre-Homeric literature can you find about Troy? An odd mention of its existence by the Hittites or Egyptians perhaps, but nothing even close to the emphasis the Greeks placed on them.

It's not about claiming to be Greek you illiterate fuck.

We know what language the Trojans used and we know enough about their importance in the Hittite Empire, that's enough. Their existence regardless of Homeric literature does not owe itself to Greece any more then the nonsense of Greek writers in antiquity claiming Ahura Mazda is the Persian Zeus.

Get off your high horse.

>not about claiming Greek
Holy shit you Greek sack of shit, you are the one claiming the Romans are an extension of Greek culture, you are trying to change the goal posts here when called out on this.
>you illiterate fuck
The only illiterate is you, piss-ant.

>Debatable.
Nah. Janus was the last aspect of Roman paganism that survived into the final days of the 6th century in Roman civilization, his name was worshiped in everything from military, civil, to trade and other matters. He was actually way more relevant to daily life in Rome then Jupiter or Mars.

>Their existence regardless of Homeric literature does not owe itself to Greece
Who the fuck is talking about their "existence regardless"? In the context of Rome attempting to draw their lineage back to them though, yes it does. Homeric epic is what talked Troy up and gave it an immense legacy in the western world. Nothing is said about Troy from after its destruction until Homer wrote his literature, and after that, until proven in the 19th century, it was believed to be mythical. That's how dependent on Homer it was.

>you are the one claiming the Romans are an extension of Greek culture, you are trying to change the goal posts here when called out on this.
I said they desired to place themselves in the Hellenic sphere, which is exactly what they fucking did. I never said anything about them being Greek. Maybe some guy you argued with earlier said that, but I didn't - which is why I called you an illiterate fuck.

>Great Caesar's Ghost!

inb4: and don't call me Chief!

There was a Troy settlement in the same rough geographica area that got razed by Sulla.

>until proven in the 19 century
That doesn't take from his point at all, which you are guilty of strawmanning. Modern historians not accepting the existence or culture of Troy ! = ancient Romans being aware of Troy, which still persisted up until the 1st century BC until Sulla.

Xerxes the Great even visited Troy and performed sacrifices there and I guarantee that had fucking nothing to do with Homer. Hellenism is uniquely Greek, Romans are not Greeks, ergo they are not Hellenistic.

>Troy didn't exist meme until 19th century
Because what we didn't consider fact to be historically true now until proven doesn't necessarily mean that what ancient people did then is wrong.

Also there's a shit ton of Egyptian and Hittite scrolls that give information about the Trojan War and Troy's existence, even with the fragmentary state they are in, I guarantee you the Romans thousands of years ago had better sources themselves.

My entire point is that Romans gave themselves the Trojan association in order to have equal standing in the Greek world.

Straight from Brittanica:
>The association of Homeric heroes with Italy and Sicily goes back to the 8th century bce—when Homer’s epic poems likely became written texts—and the Greek colonies founded there in that and the next century frequently claimed descent from leaders in the Trojan War. Legend connected Aeneas, too, with certain places and families, especially in the region of Latium. As Rome expanded over Italy and the Mediterranean, its patriotic writers began to construct a mythical tradition that would at once dignify their land with antiquity and satisfy a latent dislike of Greek cultural superiority. The fact that Aeneas, as a Trojan, represented an enemy of the Greeks and that tradition left him free after the war made him peculiarly fit for the part assigned him—i.e., the founding of Roman greatness.

Romans had fuck all to do with Trojans in reality. It was a fabricated myth on par with every other foundation story of ancient peoples. The only difference is that it was an alternative one the Romans layered over their original Romulus and Remus tale, for a very specific purpose.