Many winds passed since alexander...

many winds passed since alexander. lets meet up and compare these two and peoples regards towarda them when equal time will pass from hitler too.

The main reason has to be that we don't hold people of the past to the same standard and actually expect them to uphold the moral virtues of their time. Hitler did not. Plus Hitler's warmongering isn't exactly on par with Alexander is it? Did Alexander take part in genocide for instance?

It's because of western racism against Persians.

Nothing made him better except he won more.
That's why they are both great!

>uphold the moral virtues of their time. Hitler did not.

What the hell are you talking about?

Ideas of selective darwinism, 'Eugenic' programs were not original to Nazi Germany nor was it the only place in place in Europe or the USA where it was practiced in some form or other. Colonialism was still existent with the rights of 'natives' being trampled on and being forced into fighting for a country thousands of miles from their home with little say in the matter. The USA was rampant with racism with segregation still in force - this was not the case with Germany. In the decades after the war the French had to suffer the Algerian uprisings - uprisings where they forced similar circumstances on the Algerians such as ghettos and curfews.

Talking about 'moral virtues' of the west, indeed of the world even in that era and to say that 'Hitler' was an anomaly when equivalent and worse atrocities were seen, practiced, and felt during and in the years after is plain ignorant.

>this was not the case with Germany.

In the context of black people that is.

Obviously, segregation with regard to Jews etc.

What Hitler did is extremely well documented by various non biased sources. Alexander's actions aren't as well documented along with there not being a plethora of non biases sources

>anti-nazism isn't a bias
Kys

Alexander the Great was vastly more successful than Adolf Hitler. As well, Alexander didn't contradict his generals and make them do silly shit.

Like really, Alexander wrecked so much shit his men got tired of it and begged him to let them go home.

The west was hardly a paragon of morality but at least we didn't ship off women and children to die in forced labour camps based upon them being born out of the wrong vagina.

>what exactly made him better than good ol' Adolf?
He actually didn't dispossess the persians or the Malli faggots from punjab. When he crushed Porus, he let him keep his kingdom and autonomy as long as he swore an oath of fealty. When He basically adopted the satrap system and kept the tribute system the vassals used to pay Darius III exactly the same, just swapped the name to phoros like in the delian league.

Didn't try to force the greek culture so much on the others either. Perfect example of this is when the persians bowed down to him. Now that practice for the greeks was called proskinesis and that was a religious act. Greeks did not bow down to men, no matter how Great they were, only to the Gods. While it offended him and the sensibilities of the other greeks/macedonians, he pretty much started to ignore it. Also when in Egypt when he visited the oracle of Siwa and was called "O Pai Diou", literally Son Of God, instead of going full crusade on their ass he adopted their custom and started referring to himself as "Lord of Asia", the sort of title with which the near-easterners were familiar were so it was a conscientious effort to embrace both Greece and Asian patterns of authority. Mainly for the pragmatic goal of synergizing both cultures.


Hitler, on the other hand, who have gassed them all; deprived them of autonomy; insisted on being called muh fuhrer; and taxed the survivors to death.

Oh and yeah, he actually won unlike the other faggot.

Apart from the eugenics nazi program, the other things weren't particularly exclusive to the West. The ottomans managed an arguably larger slave trade, they hired barbary pirates to raid the towns of the entire mediterranean sea for slaves, ethnic cleansing happened in armenia and in rwanda, the chinese wei dynasty literally purged the 5 barbarian tribes, Timujin and Timur conducted massacre campaigns all along his merry way to europe; etc etc

I get your point about Western "elitism" or bias, but don't suddenly pretend cruelty is exclusively a western feature. And in fact I am sure other civilizations would have tried eugenics if they had the means to do so.

you fail to understand the nature of WWII.

WII was an "extermination war" not a 'conquering" war.

In a very real way, All three sides resolved to extinguish the very life and way of thought, of every single man,woman and child deemed the "enemy" of that particular side.

>WII was an "extermination war" not a 'conquering" war.
That's exactly the point I was making. Hence why Alexander had no qualms about letting his vassals get on with their lives or their culture - as long as they acknowledged him as the "High King" and paid their tribute on time like good little vassals.

This comparison to Hitler is often made about Alexander III, often cheekily and for clickbait/readbait purposes, but I don't remember him instituting mass genocide of specific population groups. If anything he sorta promoted intermixing as a way to help rule a multiethnic empire.

It's true that he sacked cities and sold their inhabitants into slavery (though he even allowed some to come back) but that was the order of the day and basically how pre-modern wars were often fought. He wasn't quite an exception and the Romans were arguably much worse.

Does anyone really revere conquerors as "paragons of humanity" anyway? They just understand how important their actions were historically and they find some things they did impressive. All guys but the most ideologically pacifist ones sometimes have those fantasies of glory even though they would never hurt a fly, there's a reason video games are so popular.

Also Alexander is probably one of the best ancient historical movies around though it's been a while since I've seen it.

But yeah, sure, Carlin's point isn't overall wrong and he repeats much of what I said basically. And I'm sure Hitler will be remembered with much less hate, though likely not fondly considering he was ultimately a failure and a butcher at the same time.

>Did Alexander take part in genocide for instance
Putting every male over the age of 12 to death and enslaving the women then repopulating the place with ones own people was by no means uncommon. It just wasn't called genocide because it obviously took place at a smaller scale.

The Nazis sent e.g. the Jews of places they temporarily held during WW2 to concentration camps even in places where they didn't have particular plans to kill the local population.

It's still a bit different I think.

>Putting every male over the age of 12 to death and enslaving the women then repopulating the place with ones own people was by no means uncommon
That's not evidence in the slightest though. That's just you making generalisations about antiquity then pinning it on Alexander. He couldn't even afford/hope to do that for half of his campaign since he literally was in uncharted territory with fallacious greek map casing the end of the world/oceanos was less than 1000miles away. I think one of the few genuine massacres his campaign partook in was before the happened during the mallian expedition when he was seriously wounded and his men went a vengeance killing spree. And I think another one before at some sort of pass point village town before entering the Punjab region as they had "no choice" in order to guarantee a line a communication with the rest of his recently acquired empire; had he not done so the life of his soldiers (and his own) would have been at the mercy of whomever cut the communication/supply line and they would have entrapped themselves.

You can't throw the word genocide around whenever it suits you because it makes your argument sound more impactful. If he didn't wipe out entire ethnicities, or practiced ethnic cleansing, then it is not even remotely close to genocide. It's just good ol' massacres.

>they're Jews so it's different
Good goy

The difference is that you have been trained to see massacres and ethnically-motivated massacres as different even though they have exactly the same consequences.