Objectively, who was better? Who is underrated?

Objectively, who was better? Who is underrated?

Difficult to tell, they both made good use of available resources. Cyrus was perhaps a little more psychologically stable.

cyrus obviusly

t. alireza losangeleszahdeh

Macedonians/Greeks are basically the invading German barbarians for the Persian Roman Empire, or the invading Arabs for the Persian Byzantine/Sassanid Empire: they loot everything, burn the rest, and then establish kingdoms using the pre-existing power structures. They were the forces of destruction.

Al*xander inherited a more stable and a very powerful military force by his father
Cyrus worked from basically nothing

I wouldn't say so. It's true they mostly destroyed the indigenous civilizations but at the same time replaced them with rabidly Hellenic culture which was superior anyway.

>muh Persepolis
Most of the Persian Empire was untouched during the conquest. Alexander only targeted places of military or political significance.

...

> Hellenic culture which was superior anyway
For some reason, I think you would object if I were to say the same about Arabic culture in the Middle East.
You can say the same about Germanic and especially Arabic conquests.

>Objectively, who was better?

Impossible to tell.

>Who is underrated?

Cyrus just because Alexander is so famous.

>cuck sandnigger vs shitskin boyfucker

prepare yourselves, both subhuman diasporas incoming

Cyrus just copied everything from Mesopotamia. He's overrated

And Alexander was handed to him the best army of antiquity by his father, and an empire with a functioning bureaucracy.

Both are subhumans (one is Greek other one is a fucking Fersian) but Alexander was relatively better

If Alexander had had as much time as Cyrus there wouldn't even be a debate.

Alexander was hotter

The Persians were easily the most civilized race of their age.

>wanting an effeminate gayreek boi over a rugged Persian King

>If Alexander had had as much time as Cyrus there wouldn't even be a debate.
>No debate
Cyrus is objectively better, unlike Alexander whose only excelling skill was leadership

Cyrus was able to, you know, rule his empire for a while before dying.

Cyrus conquered:
>Median Empire
>Lydian Empire
>Neo-Babylonian Empire
>Lycia
>Cilicia
>Phoenicia
>Sogdia
>Massagetae and other steppe tribes

>left the empire a well-organized, coherent entity allowing his successors to expand greatly

Meanwhile Ale****er conquered:
>some Greek dissenters after all of Greece was at his side
>some Illyrians and Triballi
>Persia, and even then not all of it
>some cities in the Indus valley

>left the previously coherent Persian empire disintegrated, without one heir and a functioning state apparatus

Not to mention how Cyrus was widely considered a paragon of virtue, learning, ethics and tolerance, lauded by the Greeks, named by the Jews a messiah, and considered a model of governance by the founding fathers of USA. Meanwhile Alexander was a drunken maniac, a bisexual who'd kill his personal friends because they'd offended him during a party. He'd often elevate or degrade people on the account of fucking their daughters or wives. For this reason he's widely idolized by Muslims.