Whats up with that?

he wasnt a big enough guy

Western europe was not like today. It was pretty backwards compared to the eastern civilizations fo most of history until recently.

Actually, Alexander was planning to move west and conquer Carthage and Rome after he had finished up the Arabian peninsula.
Unfortunately, before that happened he died and his generals threw away his ambitions as unrealistic, and proceeded to go Diadochi.

This.

Literally a perfect answer.

In a sense, this. conquering Persia was seem as a defensive measure. The noble savages of the North didn't warrant that kind of pacification.

because he feared the white warrior and his powerful druid magick

Rome is eternal. Alexcuck would've fallen to the superior Latin warrior. We already know through time and time again that Greek scum can not beat Romans.

>The Greeks hated the Persians
Then why did Greeks try repeatedly to integrate Persians into their origin myths like claiming the Persians were descendants of Perseus? Or how much almost every Greek writer in antiquity slobbed Cyrus the Great's cock?

Alexander has already been to the edge of India,he defeated all opposition and there was nothing could stop him at that time
R*me was barely out of their phalanx meme tactics and legions were non existant
Alexander would've flogged the senate and nailed their heads to the door

>"Greeks hated the Persians"
>yet Sparta fought in favour of the Persians against the Macedonians
>the Ionians were constantly conquering Aegan islands under Memnon to undermine Alexander
>Athens and other prominent city states were planning a revolt against the Macedonians after hearing about the Ionians successes
>Thebes hated the Macedonians to the point Alexander burnt their city to the ground and erased them from history
Stop getting your information from 300

>Alexander died to soon to destroy the Eternal Roman

>In Europe proper it was a bunch of forests with hunter-gatherer barbarians
they weren't hunter-gatherers, they had farming and iron and advanced weaponry

but yeah other than that they were stinking forest dwelling barbarians, the great civilizations were in Greece, Egypt, Middle East, Persia and India

Alexander's father had already beaten up the Thracians pretty thoroughly before Alexander turned east. But there just wasn't much out there beyond the Danube in 350 BC. No one then knew about the gold deposits in Dacia. Looking at the Western Mediterranean, the only places of note were the Greek colonies in Sicily/Italy and the Phoenician colonies in North Africa/Spain. Of these the best cities were Syracuse and Carthage. Syracuse was the largest Greek city of the time in terms of population.

Was he afraid of the european warrior?

>"Macedonians weren't Greek"
They weren't.
Not as swarthy as rest of the Greeks as well.

>using the word "swarthy"
this isn't the nineteenth century anymore, percival

Oh yes, we wuz Alexander n shit.

Macedonians and Mycenaeans were just larping. They were more Central/Eastern Euro in skin tone than Meds.

>beat Persia
>gain Persia
>WOW SUCH A WORLD CONQUEROR, HE CONQUERED EGYPT AND IRAQ AND TURKEY AND PAKISTAN AND INDIA AND AND AND...

He conquered Persia and nothing else.
And by """conquered""" I mean that he replaced the Persian king, while every other person in the Persian administration remained where they were, and the Persian tradition and laws remained, and basically it was a glorified military coup.

>pre-america
>all trade goes east, easterners rich

>america discovered
>all trade happens in the west, east declines

>westerners instantly forget the thousands of years of history and prehistory before the americas and assume the east always has been poor and even genetically inferior

yes except for the few Greek and Phoenician colonies as well as early Italian kingdoms

Did Alexander fear the white warrior?

The Greek biographer Plutarch (ca. 45–120 AD) who described Alexander as blond and blue-eyed :

>"Alexander had light skin, blond hair, and melting blue eyes. A sweet natural fragrance came from his body, so strong that it perfumed his clothes."
This was somehow corroborated by the Greek historian Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - 160), who described Alexander as:
>"The strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky".

It is therefore possible that Alexander had one brown eye and one blue eye.

Alexander wasn't an Empire-builder
He and his group of bandits moved from one wealthy city to another, demanding tribute or else they burn it down.
He was interested in quick cash, not in establishing an Empire that lasts. So naturally, he would prefere rich Persian cities over poor European villages as a target for his extortion

t. John Green

>people that lived around 300 years after he died somehow have knowledge about his appearances
>meanwhile the Alexander mosaic is dated back to atleast 100 BC and believed to be a copy of an earlier one from 3rd century BC
When will snowniggers drop this "we wuz" act?

>implying this isn't true

Except he's right.

Prove him wrong. Protip: you can't.

>blond hair

Retarded translation. Its LIGHT hair. Light compared to the rest of the greeks. Stop translating it as blond.

>Alexander the Barbarian
>not just another mass murdering and pillaging Savage

What causes so much butthurt?

Macedonians and Mycenaean Greeks didn't look like Meds, but like Central-Eastern Europeans.

How am I butthurt for pointing out your translation is wrong?
Greeks have no "blond". They have light, or fair. Stop translating these as blond, since in the context they may mean different colors.

Prove it nig nog

Macedonians weren't Greek. Not genetically at least.

He missed a spot tho
Its called India

>his group of bandits
t. Muhammad Al-Zawarem

Show me the genetic samples from ancient macedonians, so I can repeat your analysis. Retard.

>earliest depiction of him depicts him as your average med
>hurr durr he wuz Central-Eastern European n sheit cuz I said so
The only one butthurt here is you, Cleetus, with your pathetic attempts at historical revisionism.

And he was from Pella, which back then was a port city along to Aegan sea before the gulf dried up, so by all definitions he was Mediterranean.

Most of Europe back then was Sub-Saharan Africa-tier. Everything that was worth conquering was in the East.

>Mycenaean Greeks didn't look like Meds
Mycenaen and Minoans were into some strange shit. About half their frescoes/urns depict men as brown and women as white and sometimes the opposite case.

Either the brown paint dried up and left the white stone base behind or they invented proto-BLACKED.

>He thinks that Central Europeans don´t look like Southern Europeans.

>Macedonians and Mycenaean Greeks didn't look like Meds, but like Central-Eastern Europeans.

WE

Greeks don't look like Poles or Germans

Not even Macedonians thought they were Greek.

greece is hot
people get tans
their eyes go darker
what can you do

The fact that he led an army from a country the size of modern Greece and went ahead and conquered the greatest military power in the world, that spanned from egypt to India, makes it worthy of being called more than a coup.
And by your logic, most conquests in history were actually just coups

Alexander is an impressive general, and his army a great fighting force.
He didn't conquer shit however, nor was he a strategist, or a king, or anything other than a warrior. He won impressive battles, very impressive indeed, and should be remembered for it. A great warrior, and nothing else.

>t. John Green

He is not wrong.

The Indian and Iranian butthurt in this thread is hilarious. More than two millennia's and you're still ass mad.

>snow niggers goes from revisionism to ad hominems
colour me suprised

>Hank Green

>asspained diaspora throws up some silly equivocations to suggest that its not a '''''''real''''' conquest unless you kill every member of the bureaucracy

Hey, you know, that actually works out for you, because it implies the Mongols didn't conquer any Islamic countries either, or even China.

How convenient that somehow, diasporats always finds a way of making their original nations' obvious defeats just issues of silly white people misunderstanding!
Also nice way to use 'revisionism' as a buzzword - you really prove that Veeky Forums posters are much better than /pol/acks.

He's right.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War

>westerners instantly forget the thousands of years of history and prehistory before the americas and assume the east always has been poor

What 'Westerners' did this, you faggot settler? Name a single historian before puking up your youtube pop-his tier garbage.
Fucking hell, is this board nothing but reddit retards smugly recycling their own puerile, bitter fictions about Western history?

>genetically inferior

'The east', presumably meaning the Islamic world, is badly inbred. Make of that what you will.

>Two word post

Oooooh so snappy and decisive! You must be vewy cwevew!
'Persian laws and traditions remained', except the laws and traditions that only a member of the king's family could be king, and somehow these traditions and laws remained beyond the empire's disintegration, which, by the way, didn't happen because it was conquered by Alexander, it was because an internal military coup instigated a new Persian king.

Fucking Veeky Forums-tier.

The posts arguing against him are just "hank green" and "john green", two word posts in turn. Hang yourself.

>I can't cope with my childhood hero being a shitskin

Romans ! = Italians

Not an argument, m8.

Learn to read then you illiterate wog.
Here, laid out so you even a mongoloid like you can understand:

You claim that it wasn't a conquest because the bureaucracy remained in place, yet the same could be said of the Yuan conquest of China - or the Yuan coup, by your reasoning.

Its a convenient and sophistic mangling of the word conquest that allows insolent, undereducated MENAite diaspora kiddies to
lecture actual human beings on how Alexander didn't conquer anything and actually he was just another Persian king.

Suuuuuure

The only person to answer the question properly. Wow. I'm impressed.

EARLY POSTS
>There were no great civilizations to conquer there.
>All the great ancient empires were to the east.

>There was nothing in Europe to conquer back then. The civilized world at this time was Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, and the Near East. In Europe proper it was a bunch of forests with hunter-gatherer barbarians

>At that point Rome had only just won the Latin War and was attempting to solidify its control over a spat of land that only extended from Naples to just north of the city of Rome itself. If Alexander had managed to conquer all of India then turned back and attempted a conquest of the Italic Peninsula, Rome wouldn't have stood a chance at the time.

----------------

LATE POSTS
>Learn to read then you illiterate wog.
>Here, laid out so you even a mongoloid like you can understand:

>I can't cope with my childhood hero being a shitskin

>Not an argument, m8.

---------------

It's like a civilizational microcosm

Would it not be super easy to conquer these lands then?

Its almost like a certain other (((board))) found the thread.

'Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah people aren't being nice on Veeky Forums! All we did was lie and dissimulate in a pretentious manner and call anyone who disagreed /pol/! Waaaaaaah!'

Here's the rest of my post, faggot;

>You claim that it wasn't a conquest because the bureaucracy remained in place, yet the same could be said of the Yuan conquest of China -
>or the Yuan coup, by your reasoning.

>Its a convenient and sophistic mangling of the word conquest that allows insolent, undereducated MENAite diaspora kiddies to
>lecture actual human beings on how Alexander didn't conquer anything and actually he was just another Persian king.

If you can contradict any of that, then do so, don't do this passive aggressive cherrypicking to cast others as nasty, wotten wude peopwe who should be shadowbanned to maintain imaginary 'quality' that doesn't exist.

>There was nothing in Europe to conquer back then. The civilized world at this time was Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, and the Near East. In Europe proper it was a bunch of forests with hunter-gatherer barbarians

This is not high quality, retard. Not at all. Its uncritically regurgitated stereotypes derived from Roman sources and plain ignorance, as well as a total absence of written sources from these peoples themselves.

Yes, its the wotten wacists wuining your wonderful, sophisticated discussions. You're not a bunch of pseudish bedwetters who can't take disagreement unless its tarted up like your mum on a Friday.

you're embarrassing yourself.

>*rolls eyes*

I wouldn't want to embarrass myself in front of cool guys like yourselves, right?
Come back when you've graduated high school and aren't so pathetically afraid of social failure, neeeeeeerd.

Really though, how can it be that none of you have even tried to defend your arguments?

I'm in both of those categories.

>In Europe proper it was a bunch of forests with hunter-gatherer barbarians
This is just as laughable as the "late posts" though.

Not him but,
>you claim it was not a conquest
>the guy that started the whole shit that caused your massive butthurt says "He conquered Persia and nothing else".

Well?

Actually, no. History tells us that organized and civilized lands are easier to conquer and specially to keep conquered as long as there's something that makes them temporally weak.

You can't read and are mentally disabled? Neat.

>And by """conquered"""

He admitted that Alexander took control of Persia, in order to undermine the suggestion that he conquered it, and more.
The point of the post was to assert the agency of the Persian state over that of Alexander, which is a laughable suggestion.

As a bit of comradely advice; don't end your post like that, it looks incredibly snooty and autistic, pic related.
I understand that you wouldn't care either way, but its for your sake that I tell you.

>he can't even write 'retarded'

The inside of your brain must be so fucking sterile.
My god, it hurts to think that you were human once.

I made the original post, and have since stopped replying to your faggotry.
What I meant was that it wasn't Greece conquering Persia and making it Greek, it was just the king of Greece also becoming the king of Persia, and zero else changing.

And everyone understood you perfectly except a butthurt fanboy or two, don't worry.

>civilized discussion about Alexander and his many exploits turned into a shitflinging fest cause one snow nigger can't handle the truth about his idol being your average barbarian that opressed greeks aswell as persian and everyone else around the levant and mesopotamia for personal glory
Now I know why they call this place "/pol/ with dates".

There are zero dates in this thread, mate.

suprisingly there is one case
so analogy still stands

Its totally wrong to say 'zero else' changed, considering that Alexander introduced Hellenistic political institutions and settled Greeks and Macedonians in Persia and Mesopotamia.
Besides, the dynasty which followed Alexander as rulers of Persia and Syria etc. were even more focused on Hellenisation than Alexander was - they founded cities with Greek names and continued importing more and more Greeks into their territories.

Why don't you get your tongue right under his foreskin, nice and thorough, eh?

Here is the Roman Republic at the death of Alexander. Rome is certainly a regional power in Italy, but nothing compared to the Macedonian Empire.

>greek colonialism

There were probably less than one million greeks worldwide at the time, they didn't settle shit. Persia probably had several tens of millions.
A few guys having villas or establishing trading posts doesn't mean anything

He planned on Carthage and probably Italy but died.

He planned on Arabia first. Probably Arabia Felix, a very rich land.

>300 bc
>Europe Hunter gatherers
Fucking get off this board

Carthage actually looks like a more relevant power at the same time.

>being this mentally unhinged
Cute.