Why do street-shitting, gypsy spawning Indians hate Alexander so much?

Indians also reject the indo European migration and bash the notion on quora. It's because of Indian nationalism.

>Indian nationalism.
What on Earth could they possibly have to be proud of?

...

Russia during the Mongol invasions was much more homogeneous than India has ever been. Besides all parts of it got conquered. That is more analogous to the British colonisation or the Mughal invasions of India than the invasions I'm talking about. If you're talking about those than I agree(to an extent), otherwise your argument is invalid.

The first part is a bunch of shit that is irrelevant that I never mentioned. The second part accuses me of Portuguese like bravado when I specifically criticise Indian Nationalists in my post for falsifing history and making stupid claims(like denial of AMT/AIT and of course the one mentioned in OP's post)

If the French get to larp as Gauls and the English may build statues of Boudica Turks should have the right to larp as hitties.

Because Indians have it the worst of all the races on this earth and they need to be proud of something. I thank God everyday that I wasn't born a nigger Indian.

Worse than negros?

Because being the world's second most populated area through pretty much all of recorded history while getting subjugated and colonized by some small island 8000 miles away--who, mind you, had problems conquering and subjugating it's nearest small neighbors that are far more less populous than you, and who had trouble fending off normal Muslim empires in the ME--for over 200 years, really killed their psyche, as-well with the numerous Muslim empires that reigned over them. But the Brits are the most recent, and most damaging in terms of btfo'ing any might they ever had. So when they see those pale bastards look up to Alexander the Great, and see how he's revered in the Western tradition as being the greatest conqueror of non-European lands, and connect how he didn't go on into India-India, they make up this fantasy that they were once united and competent that they alone stopped his invasion train and BTFO him, even though by all accounts the Battle of Hydaspes was a victory and the worst Alexander suffered was losing 1000 men out of his 80,000 fighting force, and chose to ignore that how all the places named after him or with Greek names in the Indus river region, or there being coins minted commemorating his victory with his head garlanded with a elephant-hide showed that not only wasn't it not a fabrication made by later Greek-Roman writers, but that Alexander really did win the battle and BTFO Porus and likely did went home due to his troops mutiny.

wew it must suck to be you

Jesus Christ, it must fucking suck ass to be Indian. What a bunch of shitty, shitty people with a shitty, shitty history.

Why do we allow them a voice on these matters so they pollute the world's well of knowledge with their filth and unwarranted Nationalism?

You're trying too hard.

>Describing subhumans for what they are is trying hard
Whatever, Pajeet.

/pol/ deserved that reputation for being such shit flinging fagbabbies
Been to /pol/ in the past and currently i can say theyre the new /a/

Still doesn't remove the fact that you're obsessed with a Veeky Forums board. Get your shit together.

>POOjit

T. Nigger Indian

>The subcontinent was only fully conquered 3 times in history.
Mauryans, Mughals and Anglo's?

No
I usually ignore them

>tfw you will never be influential enough to still be generating butthurt thousands of years after your death

That is the mark of a truly great person.

>mind you, had problems conquering and subjugating it's nearest small neighbors that are far more less populous than you
The sub-continent was already on the verge of collapsing then. They didn't conquer the subcontinent through militaristic power moreso than effective politics and divide and conquer.

>, and who had trouble fending off normal Muslim empires in the ME
>normal
The Delhi Sultanate at their prime was able to fend off the Mongols also at their peak. Wtf...

>and the worst Alexander suffered was losing 1000 men out of his 80,000 fighting force,
He was sieging a city of 20,000 soldiers. The only reason he didn't lose many soldiers in that battle compared to his other battles in India was because of the longbows (which was their main offense) being taken out by the rain. And even then his soldiers lost the moral to go forward.

All in all what a dumb post.

Why are so many people permanently butthurt at Indians on Veeky Forums? Are these memers the same people that say Chinese history is shit?
>t. non-knower

Delhi Sultanate was ruled by Turkomongol Mamluks

>Mongol
What no. The first four were Turkic. The last one before it collapsed was Afghan.

Because he was European and gay

Poland wasn't subjugated from 966 to 1770

Neither was India wtf

t. pol graduate

ayo hol up
This is how misinformation spreads.

Mauryans never 'conquered' India in a classical sense I hate this master ruseindian nationalists create. Besides their core area in the northeast the Mauryas controled interlinked centres but it wasn't some grand unified empire. After Ashoka it quickly collapsed, it didn't have a real unified imperial structure at all. But Indian nationalists have somehow decided to create the myth of this grand unified Mauryan empire. If anything the Guptas were more impressive

>Besides their core area in the northeast the Mauryas controled interlinked centres but it wasn't some grand unified empire.
I agree. It was more of a political subjugated union.
>After Ashoka it quickly collapsed, it didn't have a real unified imperial structure at all.
That's true but 55 years after his death is still very impressive for something that was akin to the Mongolian empire and their territories.
>But Indian nationalists have somehow decided to create the myth of this grand unified Mauryan empire. If anything the Guptas were more impressive
I myself don't know much about the Guptas barring they loved science n shieet. The Mauryans were only around for 137 years but they left a large legacy after.
What I found most impressive is how they were able to take over the entire sub-continent in around 30 years flat. Nothing close like that ever happened again, especially in an age without gun powder.
The Nanda empire was kind of cool too.

And also, their espionage network was pretty rad and well known domestically and 'internationally' (well no wonder considering how their government ran).

>I ignore them
>Mind you I mention them 80 times a day because of my obsession with them BUT I HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND BECAUSE I IGNORE THEM AHAHA >:D
Imagine having an obsession with a Veeky Forums board. Sad.

because he was a foreign invader whose troops raped and pillaged, he was just like genghis khan or muhammad.
Why wouldn't they hate him?

>Why wouldn't they hate him?
But we don't. Taking the opinion of those nationalists for your average person is like believing /pol/ to be your average teenager.

Hate him is one thing, denying his accomplishments and his history is another.

>Still finding a way to mention /pol/ in a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with them
Get help, you have an obsession with a Veeky Forums board. You try to sound reasonable and then you fuck it up.

>Hate him is one thing, denying his accomplishments and his history is another.
Historical revisionism is common with uber nationalists
>Still finding a way to mention /pol/ in a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with them
This is my first post itt.

if you hate somebody, it is hard to be objective about his "accomplishments "

people here also often deny turkish or arabic accomplishments.

The funny thing is that he actually looks like a fucking Turk from one of those many Ottoman portraits of Sultans with the added onion and stache.

If this isn't evidence that modern "Turks" are just Greek LARPers then I don't know what is.

>Historical revisionism is common with uber nationalists
It's common with everyone with an agenda. Quit pretending this is a nationalist ideology linked problem.
>This is my first post itt.
And it was shit, congrats.

>Turkish or Arabic accomplishments
Both highly debatable and shrouded in pop culture myth, like "Arab numerals" that have nothing to do with Arabs but with Indians, for example. With Alexander you'll find yourself hard pressed to find a more written about figure from antiquity than him, even though it was mostly posthumous. This is not debatable.

Both Turks and Arabs at least managed to create Empires that lasted for a long time
Alexander didn't

Yeah, because he died, you autistic shitskin. You think anyone would take it from his grasp if he was alive? The man never lost a battle.

Same thing happened with the Mongols after Gengis Khan died, you're gonna deny everything he accomplished before he died and his sons and grandsons started fucking shit up?

In my eyes, Gengis Khan and Alexander were brutal conqurerors and opressors who brought nothing but suffering and misery.
And sure, people wrote much about Alexander, but not so much as about Muhammed

Except that his empire was still ruled by the conquerors after his death. It didnt just dissolve, it was broken into a bunch of Hellenic states.
His conquests were still valid even though it wasn't a single unified state after his abrupt death.

>It's common with everyone with an agenda. Quit pretending this is a nationalist ideology linked problem.
Your average person wouldnt have an agenda to press and they'd acknowledge that Porus lost.

The Arabs made an empire that connected Europe, the Middle East, and a bit of central asia and a bit of India for the first time in history. Barring China, this was all of the known world then.

You could almost say it was the original Mongol Empire. I don't care about Arabs eitherway but you should give credit where it's due.

so he achieved nothing that would last
Unlike arabs or turks.

>Brutal conquerors and oppressors
Gengis Khan might've been. If you knew anything about Alexander you'd know his father set him on this path since he was a young kid (he even fought in the battle of Chaeronea at age 18), he instilled this feeling of Hellenic unity under the banner of Macedon to fight off the eternal enemy of Greece, which is Persia.

>Muhammed
All of it posthumous and all of it tainted with religious fervour. I find it abhorrent you'd mention that pedophile in the same breath as Alexander.

Also this. It reached Caesar's days, his heirs I mean.

>Your average person wouldn't have an agenda to press
Which is what I said. I said people with an agenda will distort the truth and you said "PEOPLE WITH NO AGENDA DON'T DISTORT THE TRUTH". Are you seriously this stupid? I thought you people were supposed to be doctors and shit.

>Connected Europe, the Middle east and a bit of central Asia and a bit of India for the first time in history
And it broke off soon after because the Berbers conquered the Iberian peninsula basically on their own, there was resistance from minute one, the Abbasid caliphate fucked things up and then the Turks started fucking shit non-stop. You're the kind of "historian" who looks at a map and things "Whoa, big map, these guys must've been invincible". I can tell you never stepped foot in a university.

Why do you feel the need to talk about subjects you have no understanding of? Just stop. After you read this, stop typing, you're embarrassing yourself.

The Arabian and Turkish empires did the same exact thing. Do you see an Arabian or Turkish empire still standing today?
No, because they fragmented.
What all three have in common is that they instilled Arab/ Turkish power over their conquered lands.
Alexander did the same.

>You could almost say it was the original Mongol Empire
that was one of the most stupid, uninformed and naive things i ever read on this board
you're not qualified to post here buckaroo
don't bother, there are some seriously retarded people itt

>Gengis Khan might've been. If you knew anything about Alexander you'd know his father set him on this path since he was a young kid (he even fought in the battle of Chaeronea at age 18), he instilled this feeling of Hellenic unity under the banner of Macedon to fight off the eternal enemy of Greece, which is Persia.
You expect me to feel sorry for him? What about the hundred thousand of innocent men, women and children, who had to die or lose loved ones, only to satisfy his hunger for glory?

at least those empires lasted for centuries, and brought peace and stability to the people living there, so the blood and the conquering wasn't for nothing.
In Alexanders case, he destroyed an Empire, killing a large amount of people, only to cause even more suffering in civil war after his death

>You expect me to feel sorry for him?
I expect your autistic, shitskin ass to understand that there's fundamental differences between Alexander and Genghis Khan. The latter wanted to destroy everyone who lived in cities and not in tents because he believed them to be weak and worthy of slaughter. Alexander wanted to unify an empire under one rule and keep things alive and prosperous. Khan was a purely destructive force, Alexander was a warrior, general, strategist, statesman and a diplomat when he had to be.

>MUH INNOCENT MEN WOMYN AND CHILDREN
Like the people the Arabs slaughtered on their way from Mecca to Toledo? Fuck outta here. Empires, hell, kingdoms are built on corpses. Sympathy has no place in history. Kill yourself you shitskin, you're embarrassing.

>at least those empires lasted for centuries, and brought peace and stability to the people living there, so the blood and the conquering wasn't for nothing.
Lol, there was unrest from minute one.

>Non-stop revolts on non-Arab lands because even before teh Abbasids, there was this idea of Arab superiority and new converts STILL had to pay a tax
>They kept non-converts paying so they would finance their "empire"
>They brutally killed revolts and resistance.
>There was intense infighting, the Fatimids, the Turks, the Mamluks at some point raised arms and said "fuck it", the Berbers, etc
>"Peace" lol
>"Stability" lol
>"The blood and the conquering wans't for nothing" lol
Kill yourself.

We should have flags on this board just to see how many of your history distorting shitskins there are here.

>Which is what I said. I said people with an agenda will distort the truth and you said "PEOPLE WITH NO AGENDA DON'T DISTORT THE TRUTH". Are you seriously this stupid? I thought you people were supposed to be doctors and shit.
Well excuse me. I rarely use English so I miss the meanings sometimes.

>And it broke off soon after because the Berbers conquered the Iberian peninsula basically on their own,
That's true I forgot about that it was only part of the Empire for 38 years

lol you really believe that?
Both Genghis Khan and Alexander were ruthless warlords driven by their desire for glory, both of them had no problems with slaughtering whole cities if those resisted them.
And Genghis Khan actually managed to create an Empire that lasted for generations, unlike Alexander

>*BURNS THEBES TO THE GROUND AND ENSLAVES THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN*
And people are suprised the Spartans allied themselves with the Persians over the foreign barbarians of Macedon.

You are in full mode historical denial
Arab and Turkish Empires lasted for centuries. Sure, there were revolts, but most of the subjects could live in peace and prosper through trade.
Meanwhile, Alexander literally accomplished nothing. All the suffering he caused didn't create a better world

Are you Persian?

>I rarely use English so I miss the meanings sometimes.
Then you shouldn't speak.

>That's true I forgot about that it was only part of the Empire for 38 years
It was a Muslim power for 700 years, the Abbasids were a fraction of of it that later broke off because an Umayyad heir that escaped the Abbasid massacre revolted within the Iberian Peninsula and made his own unstable Caliphate.

>lol you really believe that
I don't have to believe it, these are facts. Not all conquerors are the same. You'll find yourself pushed to find one who's exactly the same as the other. Charles Martel unified the Franks under one banner and he did it through bloodshed, diplomacy, etc (the same tools Alexander used) and didn't have problems slaughtering a whole city if it required so. When the time came for him to be crowned king he refused and accepted only the title of "Dux Francorum" and after BTFOing the Muslims in Tours, he settled down.

He did, essentially, the same thing Alexander and Genghis Khan did but only in France. Why isn't he on your list of "MUH EBUL CONQUERORS XD"? Because the scale wasn't as big? Or maybe because every conqueror isn't the same and some are purely destructive (Khan) and others are constructive (Alexander).

>Genghis Khan actually managed to create an Empire
That broke off soon after his death and got divided and his sons and grandsons fucked shit up individually. All and all, no. Alexander's empire was segmented and it reached the days of the death of the Roman Republic.

Why do shitskins with know historical knowledge feel the need to talk about these subjects?

>Centuries
They were pushed off Europe relatively quick (minus Granada), off Sicily (the Normans slaughtered them) and soon enough their power split because of internal quarrelling (because Arabs gonna Arab and Turks gonna Turk).

>Alexander accomplished literally nothing
Lol at these fucking Muslims distorting history and repeating. Neck yourself, subhuman.

awful lot of muslims and pajeets ITT outright denying history
we really need flags

what does it matter what my nationality is?
do you need to know it to launch ad hominem attacks against me?

Why are you talking about Charles Martel, he is not the subject of our discussion?
But in general, I do believe that people who defend their land have a moral highground which foreign conquerors like Alexander or Genghis Khan dont have.

You only see Alexander as good because he is one of "your" guys, when in reality he was just as ruthless as mongols or the hunns.

>what does it matter what my nationality is?
>do you need to know it to launch ad hominem attacks against me?
You're denying historical facts and knowledge, it's quite obvious you're not European or American. It's a trait you shitskins usually have.

>Why are you talking about Charles Martel, he is not the subject of our discussion?
Neither was Genghis Khan, but you mentioned him.

>people who defend their land
Martel wasn't defending his land until he fought the Muslims, he was set on conquest and unifying the Franks, something Clovis had done before.

>You only see Alexander as good because he is one of "your" guys
Not really. I see some European conquerors as bad whilst I can look at foreign conquerors as something good. Because I'm not some autistic shitskin with 0 knowledge of history, I can compartmentalise and separate people given their circumstances instead of declaring everyone who conquered land as a "LOL WHAT A KILLER".

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself, not to mention repeating yourself non-stop. You're adding nothing to this discussion, just showcasing how historically illiterate you are.

>what does it matter what my nationality is?
Why not simply answer?

because then you will ignore my arguments and focus on my nationality

Thats not true at all.
As I just said, Alexanders empire didnt just collapse into anarchy, it dissolved into separate hellenic states.
Ergo, into multiple entirely stabile empires that lasted for long periods of time.

>It was a Muslim power for 700 years
It was a Muslim power but it wasn't part of the larger empire which created it in the first place

>Then you shouldn't speak.
Rude desu. Practice makes perfect.

conquering is always bad, because it causes a lot of violence and human suffering.
But sometimes, something good comes out of it, for example, a stable realm that allows the normal people to live in peace and trade with each other.
However, this didn't happen with Alexanders realm, which makes him worse than the mongols, arabs or the ottomans

You've made no arguments if we're being honest, you act like someone who hasn't finished highschool yet and you clearly have no university studies.
What is your nationality? Obviously you're not European, or you wouldn't hesitate to say. What is it?

You realize that all empires are forged in blood?
Persia was forged in conquest just as bloody as Alexanders.
Also, if you dont want race brought into this then try not pushing the issue with
>"your" guys
You only hurt your argument there.

>It was a Muslim power but it wasn't part of the larger empire which created it in the first place
It was hardly a part if it from the start considering the Berbers conquered it basically on solo mode.

>Rude
I mean you shouldn't speak of specific subjects until you master it. It's pretty functional as it stands.

>Conquering is always bad
Historically illiterate statement, typical HS baby.
>Muh violence, muh suffering
It's been an integral part of humanity since the start. Get over it.
>Sometimes, something good comes out of it
I thought it was always bad? :^)
>However, this didn't happen with Alexanders realm
It didn't happen to any realm. Egypt was fine, Greece was fine (Hellenistic kingdoms), Macedon was fine.

>Makes him WORSE than the Mongols, Arabs or the Ottomans
Fucking lmao, he must've raped your ancestors HARDCORE for you to say something as retarded and historically illiterate as that.

>Mongols
They LITERALLY conquered to DESTROY and SUBJUGATE. These are the words of Genghis Khan: "The Greatest Happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.". Do these sound like the words of a beneficial conqueror you fucking autistic shitskin?

>Arabs
Unstable EVERYWHERE, the only stability, peace and prosperity was within the Arab Peninsula and even THEN it didn't last because of the infighting.

>Ottomans
Even more unstable and bloodthirsty than the Arabs. Look at their Sultanates, look at their non-stop attempts to conquer Constantinople, look at their violence in Europe that bore no fruits (other than them getting BTFO by the Europeans in Vienna, so essentially they fought to kill and to die with no results).

You've just been humiliated with hard, historical facts. Sit down and shut up, you're EMBARRASSING yourself, you shitskin. Finish HS before you talk. What is your nationality?

Yeah, he doesn't know the Persians LITERALLY went conquering because their chief-god DEMANDED the world as a form of offering, so their conquering was done for a bloodthirsty reasoning.

Don't bother talking to this shitskin.

But we dont.
He was pretty impactless for indian history, having conquered a few villages outside India proper if we assume everything after Indus river is India. His name (sikander) is just used as a cliche sometimes.

>But we dont.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Pajeet.

>you hate someone because I say it

Your actions speak otherwise, shitskin.

Lmao how do you even figure out my 'actions' from a chinese cartoons website?
Besides you're the one who's looking butthurt from your language.

>Is a Pajeet
>Is a moefag
>Hates Alexander but has to pretend online he doesn't
>Rebuttal consists of "NO U"
OK, friendo.

Why would I hate Alexader? He has very little impact on Indian history, it doesnt even make sense.

>Why do people hate their invader?

You tell me, why do you hate him? :^)

There's more to this post, Pajeet. Keep reading. I know you like shortcuts, that's why you shit on the streets, just keep going.

Why are you dragging Portugal into this?

Genghis Khan did build and empire and it remained united after hia death, unlike Alexander. This is an history board.

>poor b8
C'mon man we're better than that

I don't deny that Genghis Khan was not as bad as Alexander, since at least he created an Empire that lasted for some time.
Still, he was pretty bad. For example, he completely depopulated Persia

>This Persian scum who got BTFO still hanging around
Lol.

>Persian scum
That guy isn't Persian, I'm pretty sure he's Indian.

Why would he be sucking Persian, Arab and Turkish dick tho?

Why do so many Indians have Persian, Arab, and Turkish names then?

And you're thinking other Greeks didn't join in. Nobody in Boeotia bat an eyelid because they all hated Thebes. The destruction of Thebes freed these cities form citizens to return home

He sacked the whole city and enslaved everyone. There was nothing to return to.