W-was he right?

W-was he right?

He's not talking about the women.

No shit faggot

>Alexander the Great
>God in the Singular

What?

That god loved them or that he made them beautiful? I certainly agree with the latter.

What bothers me about this quote is that he says "God" yet he was a polytheist?

I've read many greek excrepts and passages in the original and there has been a repeated reference to a singular god or "the god"

Could any user could explain what the deal was with this? Are they invoking Zeus or a topical god?

Plato, Pythagoras and other philosophers had a concept of a Monad or metaphysical God. The Source. The First Being. This concept is what informed Jews and Christians conception of God. However, I have no idea if this is what Alexander is referring to.

bear in mind he's between Persia and Peshewar.

>God
>Afghans
>At the time of Alexander the Great

No

Afghans back then didnt look like the pedo goat herders you see now.

t. Gayfaggot

Is this just a thread to dump pictures of exotic looking Afghans?

>tfw this "goatfucker" will never bacha my baz

feels horrible

Most of these have russian genes thanks to the soviet afghan war. They're part slav. God knows how the classical era afghans looked like?

>goat fucker
>boy fucker
>anything that isnt nailed down fucker

Pick your poison. Ive been to Afghanistan, apart from the bomb ass opium its rocks,goats,explosions and herders/farmers fucking little boys they stole from some village

thats actually about it with the country.

You are misinformed and stupid. Afghans have looked like this way before the Soviets.

Also the whitest ethnic groups of Afghanistan, the Nuristanis and the Wakhis have been untouched by the Soviets so you are completely wrong. There are also old pictures and writings describing how some Afghans have fair features and that surprised the Westerners who had come over to see them.

Stop spreading bullshit with your rape fantasies please

t. Mohammed

t. ignorant fucktard

They are part "slav" but not in the way you think. They are, like a lot of groups in Central Asia descendants of nomads from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, just showing a variety of admixture with North Indians and Mongols, which allows some to retain fair features and some not depending. The least admixed ones are almost indistinguishable from whites

I worked in a refugee camp for months. Afghans are fucking weird as fuck. The most foreign people on the planet, they make Africans seem normal, and Arabs seem identical to Euros. The only people who are as weird are gypsies who are basically an alien race.

But, they are fucking beautiful. Even the ones who are not sexually attractive have the most interesting faces. They're photogenic as fuck, it makes you want to put them in some Spaghetti Western or some shit. And they all look so different. Incredible.

So basically an Arcadian/Homeric paradise with less bronze weaponry and more explosions.

>However, I have no idea if this is what Alexander is referring to.

Alexander was taught metaphysics by Aristotle, of course he's referring to a sort of Monad. Though Alexander did definitely believe in the Greek pantheon, and took his religion quite seriously.

What sort of things do they do or say that make them so foreign?

And yeah I agree, even the unattractive ones are photogenic. Really unique people

Alexander wouldn't have believed in a singular "God" but rather a pantheon of gods.

>Afghans
There were no "Afghans" at the time. There were northern Bactrians Soghdians, and southern Arachosians Gedrosians.

Daily reminder that the """afghans""" (there was no such thing as afghanistan back then) of the time were still blond blue eyed aryans, and would look more similar to swedes than to the arabo-turko-mongol low IQ rape babies which constitute today's afghani population.

“Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on Simplicity.” – Plato

Of course he did, he thought he was the son of Zeus/Ammon

Alexander cared only for combat. He believed in a single god, War.

He did make them unconquerable apparently.

Some of the Kalash people look very white also. Apparently their descended from Alexander the Great's army.

...

From my understanding using Deos in the singular is the same as using man in the singular. He is using singular man to refer to all men, or an example of a man, and he is using singular deos to refer to all deities or as an example of a deity. It's to demonstrate the contrast between men and deities. It's a manner of speaking.

Like saying "monkey doesn't know what man knows" is a somewhat folksy way of saying "monkeys don't know what man knows," or a more modern usage in ebonics "monkey got fucked" is used to mean "this/that monkey got fucked." The irony of slang is that it preserves archaic forms.

Of course dark age scholars glossed over this in perhaps a misguided attempt to syncretize the ancient texts to the new normal. Most readers then and now are reading the passages wrong. There are ample context clues in the fact that deos (s) and deities (p) are both mentioned in the same sentence, and cannot be interpreted as meaning different entities without a great deal of handwaving.

see Unless only the men were raped by Arabic and Turkic women, we know that's 100% false.
> "Contemporary Tajiks are the descendants of ancient Eastern Iranian inhabitants of Central Asia, in particular the Soghdians and the Bactrians."
Encyclopedia Britannica
>The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st millennium BCE. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana).
Library of Congress
>The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia.
Cambridge Encyclopedia