Alexander

also Egypt

>Those places are the same today as they were on Alexander's time.

>look at all this.....nothing.....that we conquered!

they were already full of nutjobs

His ambitions were great.

The guy hates Aristotle and then praises Aquinas, are you really expecting consistency and objective reasoning?
He should try and sort out his ideology.

He got 90% of that in one battle, in which his opponent king fled the battlefield. Getting to that point was dope, but it's not like he fucking zig zagged all over Asia Minor rampaging much but his own anus. Pakistan was a slightly different story, and he hit a brick wall at the Ganges, turned around and died of AIDS or something.

>Crash Course
Lectures and Rants
>History
Liberal Moralism
>of the World
Of why Eurocentrism is bad

...

Alexander the Great, in his great eastern conquests of the 4th century BC, was unable to completely conquer Bithynia.

The native peoples, resourcefully using forested, mountainous regions to their advantage were able to maintain their independence, and were among the very few who could boast of resisting Alexander. Though the Seleucids, the Macedonian dynasty that ruled large parts of modern Turkey and Syria after Alexander, controlled much surrounding territory, Bithynia remained virtually independent until the coming of Rome.

I am sick of seeing his stupid cuck nu-male face every time I use the Veeky Forums catalog.

>implying the First Persian Empire wasn't the greatest in history up until Britain's
>implying the guy who conquered it wasn't objectively great
>implying Persia hasn't asked for it by burning Athens beforehand

You're a retard

May I save this picture?

Not that I'm a fan of John Green but seriously kids.
>2016
>Still believing in Great Man history
ISHYGDDT

>cuck
>nu-male
Perhaps then you should go back to the politics board then user.

The gay-AIDS thing tripped your trigger card, huh?

>Mongols
>Not funny or conquered the world

>Real great women of the ancient era like Cleopatra don't get enough recognition.

This but unironically. If SJW's knew about figures like Tahm-Rayis or Artimesia of Caris there would probably be alot less dismisal of ancient cultures because they're so like, misogynistic and gross and stuff.

That is just your opinion man. Alexnder helped bridge the gap between the European states and the Asian states creating a semi successful multicultural empire that his successors (when they went squabbling) would expand upon. If mr.Greene doesn't think that Alexander earned the title then he is very well entitled to his opinion and if he only said that kind of stuff to prompt discussion about the man and his legacy then good on him.

Can someone give me a possibly unbiased crash course on John Green? I see this a lot and would like to understand what the fuss is about but I don't feel like watching a hundred videos on YT.

Hates white people.
Ottomans dindu nuffin.

If Alexander was THE Great, does that mean Genghis Khan was Alexander THE Great's God?

Some of his videos are alright, others have heavy political overtones

If you want good history on Youtube watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=T89ugOHxcsc&index=1&list=PLkOo_Hy3liEIVg222yBVS38DXAE_EKF-N

>conquering lands inhabited by pesants and farmers
>using a much larger army
>still get btfo in Europe because mongols cannot into fortified cities
>never participate in any battle personally because you're a massive pussy

Alexander would have eviscerated Khan, both hand to hand and in pitched battle

I'm inclined to agree, and it would have been really funny.

Alexander whooped the Scythians who fought like Mongols and were unbeaten before that so there you go.

>but it's not like he fucking zig zagged all over Asia Minor rampaging much but his own anus

That is literally exactly what he did though, all across Asia. He fought a FUCKton of sieges.

Just take a look at this image and ask yourself what you think John Green has to say about history.

He's a middleaged man who thinks he's a teenager, don't expect too much.

>max army of 35,000 beating anything

Alexander's army pushed 50,000 by the Indian Campaigns, and he always won in the face of lopsided odds. The Mongols meanwhile were never able to field more than 70,000 soldiers at any one time. That's well within the size disparities that Alexander was able to overcome. Give Alexander period implements/weapons and it wouldn't even be a fight.

I agree with what this person said.

It's called Great Man Theory, and it's entirely correct.

History is a series of deeds, not a series of discourses. Fuck off back to Veeky Forums with your Marxist humbug

It's all yours, my friend!

>founds empire
>dies
>empire collapses immediately
>>>>>>great

>Still believing in Great Man history

Great Man history is entirely correct.

So if Alexander was born in sub-saharan Africa, we would have seen an African empire?

Great man theory only applies to white people.

If the specific Alexander was born to an African king, yes.

>strawman

So it only works when you already have power in place?

kek

If Phillip had moved to Egypt and left his son and wife there, it's fairly likely.

Same man. His environment is a product of him, not the other way around.

Oh btw and Spencers argument doesn't really disagree with the Great Man Theory.

Suppose, Phillip and his wife moved to Africa for xyz reason. Then they had a child that was raised by the lions. Would Alexander become the THE Great Lion?

...

Alexander would probably have risen in the ranks of any army to be a champion or top officer. His natural talents were undeniable.

Environment and upbringing can nurture potential or spoil it, but it can't instill potential when none is there to begin with.

>defending great man theory
Ironically right?

...

the idea that alexander is 100% of everything he did is incorrect but so is thinking that anyone in his position would have done the same, he had the ability and gall to do what he did, he was also supported and assisted by many people

you are being intentionally obtuse

>implying it's possible to test and therefore prove or disprove any historigraphical theory

This. I'm quite sure that Aquinas doesn't hate Aristotle.

i want to gauge his eyes out

i loathe him

I LOATHE HIM

That was a quarter of the human population at the time you retard
Fuck off back to

>w much losses would the US or Russia have trying to conquer those places
Top kek are you serious?
Those places are backwards shitholes, so not very many

>John
>Green

He isn't green though

That is the point. He couldn't have done it without his social environment. That doesn't mean what he did wasn't "great".

Stop using words you don't understand, great man theory and reductionist history has nothing to do with alexander's ability as a general. Everything with a john meme picture just turns into a shitposting post general bringing in the worst invalids

Are you trying to refute it or something? Yes, it requires some base to start on but any average king with the same power couldn't have done what Alexander did.

What if it was Hitler?

>conquering lands inhabited by pesants and farmers
You mean like Egypt and Persia?

He would have made a country with an awful economy and without the technological means to conquer neighbors quick enough to hold it together

If he was a peasant he would become a militant revolutionary and establish his own dynasty. If he was a king he'd just sort of shittalk everyone.

Same question, but also with the case of Ponthos and Iberia in general

what's wrong with calling someone a nu-male?

Hahaha

If you give a man a gun, for example and he shoots and kills a guy. He's THE great gunsman.

If you put another man in his shoe at the exact same time, chances are that guy might not shoot but then again chances are they will shoot. They are therefore THE great gunsman. This is not a unique great white superman greek mythological power flowing in Alexander's blood. He's just a regular human put in some position via circumstances. If you take the entire human history's list of kings/generals/soldiers and run them through the same scenario, you'll get a pretty large "THE Great" list.

those videos are GOAT

>being this retarded
Not any man can inspire thousands to march across the world with him.

Probably no man would inspire his army to rush a citadel to rescue him as he disappeared, alone, over the wall.

COULD there have been an Alexander without being Alexander? Sure. But there wasn't. We got Alexander instead, and he accomplished some amazing things and left the world's most reverberating legacy.

Alexander. The. Great.

It is perfectly possible that under the exact same conditions some other people would perform even better as Alexander the Great, whatever it is by luck or skill.

>across the world
>middle east is "the world"
kek

If that's the world, then Genghis Khan's march would have been the world twice over. The mauryan king would have been a world over. The british empire would have been a multiple factor over. And that was a woman too.

Alexander. A . Great

Getting mad at facts is hilarious.

>conquering empty shitholes with sand

am i supposed to be impressed or what

Alexander is a meme desu

That's 25% of the human population in his day retard

>the entire fucking Persian Empire is an "empty shithole filled with sand"
this is an even danker meme than great man history

i've been alive long enough user to realize that you can agree with people AND disagree with them in their other opinions. Magic, i know.

Roughly the same as Genghis Khan's proportionally.

On total number, 50m vs 100m+ easily.

On land mass coverage, 3% of world land vs 22%

>persian "empire"

shitholes with sands then?

It was the known world back then you cuckold. Alexander literally drew the maps as he went, and he went on foot pretty much the whole way.

You have a 6th grade level grasp of history

alexander the great is overrated to be honest desu senpai

>meme meme
>meme meme meme meme?

>The only world that existed was a greek world.

Nice try retard.

>liberal education

kys senpai

>alexander the """great"""

...

>irrelevant tribals
>Macedonia
>irrelevant tribals
>irrelevant tribals
>irrelevant tribals
>India
>irrelevant tribals
>irrelevant tribals
>irrelevant tribals
>China
you got him

>india and china are greek worlds
Nice try

>stone age primitives across the Atlantic matter
>human monkeys matter

There is this concept call 'the known world', you should familiarize yourself with it if you're going to engage in discussions about civilizations that hadn't yet mapped the entire globe.

Not the other autistic user you are arguing with. But did Alexander really map the world as he conquered? Did he have a general idea what lay ahead of him or was he just winging it?

the reason he didn't keep going into India was because his army mutinied at the Indus rather than advance into land that no Greek had any prior knowledge of