So I'm reading about Alexander and I'm wondering how the hell did this guy get a good reputation...

if Alexander was so Great then why did he die?

So young too, what a fag.

Alexander was the first conqueror to do a
number of things;

1) The Persian Empire looks pretty on a map but much of the interior was not subdued by the persians. Alexander, unlike the persians, never left a violent or aggressive tribe behind. He brought everyone under his rule in a land where most people had acted more or less independently. Thus he created the foundation for later empires - almost all of which would be run in the same mold as his rather than the Feudal society that preceeded him. The Roman empire being the prime example.

2) He brought along poets, dramatists, historians, sculptors, actors, philosophers and other advocates of culture to places where there were none. He built roads and introduced greek as a lingua franca in not only the middle east but also the entire mediteranean. For centuries, even after the advent of the Roman empire, Greek was still the go-to language for academics. His goal was to bridge the gap between cultures and he did so. This facilitated trade and exchange of ideas on a scope that had not existed prior.

In many ways, globalisation started with Alexander the Great. Before him, contact between cultures were much more limited and often it was amongst neighbors.

How else would you become famous in an era before the printing press?

He is so popular only because he was gay.

>implying that concept even existed

>i-it's not gay to bond with muh bros
t. evola

It's not about that. The concept of homosexuality literally did not exist. Nor is Alexander popular because he had relations with men, he's popular because he conquered most of the known world.

Short answer: Winners write history

Long Answer: The sources you are reading (or exist) are ones that are biased in Alexander's favour. When some one conqueror's a region the old regime is usually swept away and replaced with people willing to serve the new regime. Any opposition is swept away which means that the potential for writers to show the other side may be lost. Those who do write as said previously are biased due to loyalty or writing history to try and win favour. Chances are those invaded did not believe Alexander to be a bringer of civilisation but rather a tyrant

>Alexander, unlike the persians, never left a violent or aggressive tribe behind.

That's objectively not true. The very first rifts between the Diadochi were over who is going to conquer some independent tribes and satrapies in Anatolia and Caucasus

Literally just Eurocentrism. He was no better than Genghis Khan or the Muslim conquests.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. He's just Muhammad or anyone else. Total jackass mass murderer conquoror. But he's "our guy" so we romanticize and praise him.

Ayyyoooo he should have just killed himself then he would have been a true hero my man! When you kill your enemies, they win, don't be literally hitler am i right :^)

Righht, forgot about those. In any case, they intended to do it where the persians just didnt care.

Welcome to modern history. Check out Wrath of the Khans by Dan Carlin, he explains thoroughly why ancient hitlers (Genghis Khan, Alexander, Caesar) have been thoroughly whitewashed of any evil.

In details, Alexander spread hellenistic culture, opened channels between India and Greece/Macaedonia, built empires and dynasties that lasted centuries after his death. Still he was an asshole like all great men were.

>why ancient hitlers (Genghis Khan, Alexander, Caesar) have been thoroughly whitewashed of any evil.

I'd add Napoleon to that list too.

>enjoying your life
>word sets in that your army lost
>Alexander's army comes into the city
>your son is murdered in front of you
>your wife is gang raped
>you try to intervene and get killed
>your shit is stolen
>as you lay dying you thank Alexander for spreading Greek civilization to you, such an unworthy barbarian

As a Frenchman, I am obliged to agree with you, he brought a catastrophic death tolls. On the other hands, there was a certain romanticism of having this French commoner eventually ascend to the throne of Emperor and have the entirety of Europe stacked against him because he'd spread the spirit that toppled all absolute monarchies. Doesn't excuse him but he was a complex characters in a complicated context (like most of these historical great persons)

>Welcome to modern history. Check out Wrath of the Khans by Dan Carlin, he explains thoroughly why ancient hitlers (Genghis Khan, Alexander, Caesar) have been thoroughly whitewashed of any evil.

Thing is, I'm really failing to see how he's any different than any other conquoror, like the Vandals or other German tribes that conquored Rome. It's just whose narrative you choose.

>Us Vandals kicked their ass and conquored their shit!
>Oh no, those barbarians sacked our city and killed thousands! They are satan incarnate!

>Still he was an asshole like all great men were.

Tell me how does this argument of yours work? In order to not be an asshole, one should be very weak and be defeated? Only fight "just" wars, or what?

I believe it's because Alexander didn't outright raze cities and murdered everyone, also the fact he conquered the whole known world back then, quite a feat.

>I'm wondering how the hell did this guy get a good reputation

Cause everyone else wanted to be him. The later Greeks & Romans elites sucked his dick endlessly.

Would you order by decree the death of a man? Ten men? A hundred men? Ten thousand men? If you answered no at any of those questions, odds are you don't have what it takes to become Gengis Khan, Alexander or Napoleon. Neither do I but you have to accept these people are drench in innocent blood.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton#Religion_and_writings

Great men are almost always bad men.

He did that shit all the time. And this is to fellow greeks no less:

>Alexander punished the Thebans severely for their rebellion. Wishing to send a message to the other Greek states, he had the 30,000 Thebans not killed in the fighting sold into slavery. The city itself was burnt to the ground.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thebes

I mean yes, as punishment but I don't recall he actually razed that many cities when he pushed eastwards.

>it's okay if he mass murders Greeks as punishment. For reasons.

>Alexander didn't outright raze cities and murdered everyone

Lol yes he did.

For example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre

Never said it was okay, I was advocating that Alexander would be considered today as a war criminal, like the entirety of the most "glorious" rulers. Europe was just centered around hellenistic and latin culture for centuries and Alexander was a very fitting heroic figure to inspire them, so he naturally got whitewashed.

Well at least he didn't have that reputation, compared to others. Yet I stand corrected.

Alexander was praised for spreading classical european culture but it was a side effect of his wars rather than an intentional goal. It's like shooting an arrow and drawing a bullseye around it, not exactly the best way to do history.

He also let his men sack either Babylon or Persepolis (read rape) and then burned Persepolis to the ground.

On sidenote why do we have to use Greek names like Persepolis and Heliopolis?

>I'm wondering how the hell did this guy get a good reputation?

He was just a man pursuing his dream.

intentions are irrelevant to history, it is only actions that matter, the inner-workings of the mind are impossible to know. Nobody will ever grasp the true motivations of Alexander except himself. The only intentions that actually matter are those of whom history is written

>>intentions are irrelevant to history, it is only actions that matter
Not when you're trying to answer a question such as "Why isn't X considered a genocidal asshole when he actually was one?"

>dudes who didn't have the formal proof and couldn't find the hypotenuse if their life depended on it were just as advanced as the dudes who had, and could.

>Mesopotamians were unwashed savages
>Persia wasn't refined and advanced
>Indian populations were unwashed savages
You are an idiot.

How civilized people spread culture:
>Hey guys, check out this book I wrote. It's got math in it
>Cool. Thanks

How "greeks"" spread their "culture"
>Hey guys. Check out this spear as it passes through your throat. Oh and I raped your woman and burned your city to the ground. But don't worry. After it's all done we'll rebuild it, and we'll put some nice teachers in the schools.

Yeah, it's not like the origin legend of Pythagoras even said that he learned most of his stuff from the Persians and the Indians.

And it's not like the Macedonians could claim Pythagoras, or really any other Greek achievement for themselves.

>tfw alexander conquered most of the known men

>alexander
>greek

Because Takht-e-Jamshid and Ayn Shams sound like shit.

>How "civilized" "people" spread "culture":
>>Hey guys, check out this book I wrote. It's got math in it
>>No thanks, numerology is an important part of my religion and accepting unknown practices could offend the gods
>How greeks spread their culture
>>Hey guys. Check out this spear as it passes through your throat. Oh and I raped your woman and burned your city to the ground. But don't worry. After it's all done we'll rebuild it, and we'll put some nice teachers in the schools.
>>Thanks, we never got around to doing that ourselves.

Only because you look back from your 21st century pedestal and argue that any great historical figure was a monster based on 21st century morality. It's basic 101 history to not stand in ethnocentric judgement of historical personalities because people are molded by the times and must confirm to conditioning of that society. Would it not be unfair for future historians to paint you as a dirty gas-guzzling ecosystem-destroying war-mongering greedy capitalist pigs with awful wealth distribution even if you were against these things at the time but could not help but use the tools you could afford in that society to survive despite the long term consequences of those actions and the shame it brings to your memory?

Being the moral arbiter of history is a fool's errand. Such questions are irrelevant and mark an inexperienced or compromised historian.

he was an incredibly successful general who pursued the path of becoming a god, is that not enough?

"Sex and sleep alone remind me that I'm mortal."

Alexander's goal was to replace Darius as Emperor and sway the Persian satraps to his side, not raze the entire Persian Empire to the ground.

Every ruler at the time was a ruthless tyrant, if you want to scold Alexander you'd have to scold every other ruler also and it seems like a kind of pointless moral judgment to make.

>Egypt's civilization is older than Greece's
As a trade center of the Mediterranean, Greece would have been better at some things than the Persians. Persia was better at some things than the Greeks also. I can't be bothered to get into a silly argument about which country was better than which. If you want to discuss that you can go to /pol/ or /int/.

> if this guy was Eastern and did the same thing he'd be demonized as Satan himself for all of history
Demonizing historical figures is more a modern thing. When Xerxes invaded Greece he was portrated as an interesting character with various quirks.

Alexander became unpopular with his generals for his favoritism towards Persians and adopting their customs and the Persians were literal imperialists, so comparisons with European colonialism are very shaky.

so thats why those fucking immigrants are in my country

Weren't they Parsa and whatever? Those are just modern Arab niggery.

>using anything but the hellenization, latinization, or anglicization to refer to anything ever
The only difference between Persepolis (Parsa) and Shanghai ([guttural chewing noises]) is that the Greeks never got to Shanghai.

Yeah but Egypt and Persia were high civilizations so we could at least call their cities by their own names instead of what the Greeks called them.

And for almost as long as English has been a language, our only information on them has come from Greek and Latin texts.

Is it so hard to call it Persepolis (Parsa)?

The mongols did far worse than him by far and they are not seen as the devil. Take your white guilt elsewhere.

Lol no.

Takht-e Jamshid is Persian for 'The Throne of Jamshid', a mythical Iranian proto-king. Persepolis has been known by that name for at least 2000 years.

Ayn Shams is Arabic, yes. But you would have to use Ancient Egyptian if you wanted to call it by its original name.

>The Persian Empire looks pretty on a map but much of the interior was not subdued by the persians
It was.

Alexander lived in a time when the Empire was declining.

I don't think it matters much that Alexander's and Napoleon's legacy of achievement and genius trigger you.

good and great men are hardly ever the same

t. Bernard

He did have critics, The roman Poet Lucan called him the crazy son of Philip and a lighting bolt that struck all nations equally. Augustine was also critical of him, comparing him to a pirate who molested the world rather than the sea.

But people like a winner, and they looked passed his faults because he was the most successful general the ancient world had seen

im not impressed with this fagget

he beat a weak Persian Empire in decline, he never faced them at their peak

the first math book to show an axiomatic proof system is Euclid's Elements

no other ancient culture had this system, which is why formal mathematics begins with Euclid

thus Greek superiority

>A kill crazy psycho tyrant taking over the world and mass murdering everyone in his path.
You've descried every conqueror ever.
>Is it just because he's European
Europeans like european conquerors. Asians like asian conquerors. People like to watch their home team win.
>He's not exactly spreading civilization, as he's conquering areas that are already developed
He's spreading western civilization. See above about home teams.
>heroic warrior romantic image that we want to buy into
Are you implying non-european cultures don't have romanticized warriors?

The guy is pretty close to the epitome of Western culture.

>Ruler of a nation
>Based general
>Taught by Aristotle
>Fights with his men
>Kills the largest empire ever known
>Spreads own culture
>Founds shit ton of cities

Maybe it was good that he died early, so he couldn't fuck up his reputation with poor governance.

>couldn't find the hypotenuse if their life depended on it
Literally everyone knew the pythagorean theorem (which was not discovered by Pythagoras) lmao.

Yeah. It happens. Historical figures aren't held accountable because it was just how it was. The Assyrians composed a massive library from which much of ancient history is found, they also quite literally piled up the heads of an entire city for the hell of it.

Conquerors kill many people. Wars cause suffering.

No.

the difference is Pythagoras was the first to actually PROVE it,

other cultures knew of the theorem, but they found it by trial and error type stuff

Yeah but Assyrians were on such a whole new level of cruelty they united the nations of Mesopotamia against them and caused the creation of the tolerant Persian empire.

Yeah he was a dumb psycho that stole most of his tactics and achievments from his pops

Is this reviled gay the most overrated ancient westerner?

>Throws tantrums all the time
>Conspired to kill baby siblings along with mother
>Killed friends and allies because can't think logically
>Mass murderer and psycho
>Turbomanlet maximus
>4'11''
>Persians and even Pakis towered over him
>Blatant bottom to Hephaestion
>Drunkard and even kills childhood friends during tantrums
>Didn't know a thing about administration, economics, governance, morality
>Shit at anything that wasnt war related
>Fought six field battles
>Gayreek Empire significantly smaller than Achaemenid Empire
>Barbarian fags, beat Achaemenids for same reason Arabs did (prior wars and weak king)
>Died of AIDs with gay lover
>Empire disintegrates upon death
>Son assassinated by other gayreeks
>Fast forward and no gayreek settlement left
>Polytheist, homosexual, pedophile, drunkard, tantrum-thrower, amnd

One could call him a good general, but compared to what he was up against(decentralized leadership, war weary, and naive emperor), it wasn't hard to win. He would've gotten rekt in the Balkans especially when the Germanics and Celts invade(Greeks got rekt by Brennus). He would've gotten rekt against India(troops even mutinied at thought) and China. There is good reason why he is vilified in all Abrahamic texts.

>looked up to Cyrus the Great as hero
>would read Xenophon's book about his life like we read comics today and wanted to be just as beloved and open as he was to other tribes of people and their cultures/religions while bringing people together
>ends up destroying his Empire in a decade

Any empire that can be destroyed in a decade isn't really Cyrus the Great's empire.

Yeah okay, Stephenalous.

Because Persepolis was a city, not a province. Pars was a region in Southwestern Iran, Persepolis is located in that same area. But the main permanent Persian towns and villages were outside of Persepolis because its function was to be the summer capital of the empire for the satraps and Great King.

Here's the (You).

what do you mean he's greek op

Alexander is Trump

>He's a kill crazy psycho tyrant taking over the world and mass murdering everyone in his path.
>napoleon somehow gets the same treatmetn too when he's just a massive prick.
>w-why can't everyone just be nice like me?
they weren't worse than their contemporaries you utter retard, get off your moral high horse

Only thing I have to offer to this thread is that the Persians attacked first and lost. They had it coming.

oh and whitey takes a shot at muhammed as well
>4'11''
he was 5' 7", as all great men are
>Blatant bottom to Hephaestion
considering that he was the top in all his other relationships that seems unlikely

diasporanian?

>Alexander
>Napoleon
>Good reputations
You do realize that these are the two names that tend to get lopped in with Hitler's in terms of the most power hungry evil men in history? (Also Julius Caesar, for some damned reason.)

I guess the Kahn's get let off because they're just a "barbarians".

Were the Jews the only Middle Eastern group that rejected Hellenism? The Macabee revolt was pretty much due to Hellenistic influences in Israel and them killing Hellenistic Jews.

is just bcuz Aristotle meme and

Lol, no.

Yes he was a fucking psyco but his conquests retroactively worked for the better. Sometimes good things happen for the wrong reasons. Alexander was one the best Tacticians to ever command and is admired for what he did, how he did, and what it because regardless of the reason.

>I'm no expert on Alexander, but didn't his conquests ultimately cause a spread of Hellenic culture?
Yes. He, and his successors compromise the Hellenistic Age.

>this French commoner
He was a fucking Corsican whose primary language was gutter Italian and he could barely speak French.

Which one?

alexander was a coward

he defeated a weak persian empire, not a peak persian empire

What is this thread and why are people painting Alexander as some sort of prophet?

There are primary sources of Alexander razing, pillaging, and destroying not only in ancient Greece, but abroad. There are primary sources explaining how Alexander three aside Hellen culture in favor of the Persians, mixing and matching

As for why he was romanticized, he was a perfect example of victory in the conflict between west and east. He won battles and died before anything that could harm his reputation happened

These discussions will always be over the place. In a Greeks eyes? Sure he was a bad ass,l. In a Persians? No

Isn't Christianity pretty damn Hellenistic Judaism?