I don't get the hype

Can we stop the Alexander revisionism please, it's getting embarrassing

>middleschooler who watched john green
i have never watched that germanic cuck
>You uneducated revisionist parrots really need to fuck off and die already.
many people did that before in ME

he just had trained soldiers and fought a crumble empire, we can look at the roman empire, germanics destroyed a weakened roman empire, it wouldnt have happened if rome was at its height

Haha wow... I know that feeling!

He conquered the known world in a little bit over a decade, while being extremely young.
Can you imagine that he has accomplished more in his 30 years of living than most 30 year old millennials.

There are people on this site who are older than him that haven't even had a single gf yet

most people aren't sons of Kings
Napoleon's more impressive because of his lowly origins

sargon is better

>lowly
He was still of noble birth.

Meanwhile Chadexander had 3 wives, at least one bf and almost certainly fucked plenty of other people too

Why are you on a history board when you clearly don't know anything about history?

How was the Persian empire crumbling?

How come the trained soldiers of later hellenic armies where beaten by persian soldiers?

How come Alexanderwas able the mediterenean coast of the empire which was full of well defended big cities.

Do you actually think the persians didn't have proffessional soldiers?

How do you explain the bulk of the macedonian forces not being composed of trained soldiers?

How do you explain the actual records we have of Alexander's genius turning the tide of battles?

How do you explain the unmatched speed of his campaign?

maybe but his expansions left less of a legacy and we have not much written records of the actual battles and innovations of his time.

We have the same problem with Cyrus

You underestimate the number of butthurt P*rsians on Veeky Forums, just ignore them.

He is overrated but also not a meme general at all.

People less cared about his "achievements" and more about the person he was. Alexander was the ultimate believer in himself and others. He made them do what they thought they could not and also led by example. People write glowingly of how he was out every day even until the end of his campaining training, running with his men and led from the front. Highest energy and fearless.

He also was a very good general though besides the above. Defeating the persians in those battles were his easiest victories. Yes, most any decent general could have done that with the quality army he had. Some of his other battles though, against the greeks, scythians, siege of tyre, even in india were far more spectacular and many even good generals would have probably failed or stalemated against these foes.

Argument can be made Cyrus the Great achieved almost what he did yet no one cares about him, and I can see it. Still, he is a legend

People only say the Achaemenid empire was "crumbling" because Darius III was not a particularly good king.

The problem with Cyrus is the lack of written records about him, for all we know Alexander tried to emulate him but we will never know because there's almost no written record of who the guy was except for some short greek sources and very, very brief persian sources on his conquest.

Meanwhile alexander has been studies so profoundly we have detailed explanations about his personality, his friends, his tutor, his generals, the stories of his battles. It's like a movie.

That + the "go team"factor and the fact that alexander went to india and laid the groundwork for hellenism is why we talk so much more about alex in comparison to mesopotamian and persian conquerors

i have to go to the gym , talk later cheeky lad

I like Alexander cause he was willing to go as far as he could. He was maybe motivated by personal power and glory but he also had a hunger to see the unknown and then conquer and fuck it. Truly the most Chad man to ever live.

His origins were still very much of a minor noble family, though. It was also from recently-conquered Corsica, not even continental France.

lol, wtf why are you telling me that?
total cringe

being lovely

you know you could have taken those 5 hours at the "gym" to respond to his points right

1 hour and a half

nigger you were gone for 5 and a half hours

electricity went off so i browsed with my phone and didnt see this thread, now electricity is back again and i turned on the pc and saw the thread in the browse and i bumped my reply

Alright then. Now respond to his post.

>All he did was conquer some empire that was way past it's prime and was barely holding together as it is.
>Plenty of people have done that.

OK, name me 3 European examples, 2 Asian examples, 1 MesoAmerican, 3 Africans and 9 Australian Aboriginals who are comparable

When will people learn the difference between its and it's

>>Literally undefeated in battle

that's objectively wrong though

>Why are you on a history board when you clearly don't know anything about history?
i know some history

>How was the Persian empire crumbling?
tax were too high, that fucked them up, people at first didnt mind that much because they just ask tax and leave them alone

>How come the trained soldiers of later hellenic armies where beaten by persian soldiers?
because they were trained and achaemenid soldiers werent trained and didnt want to fight for the achaemenids

>How come Alexanderwas able the mediterenean coast of the empire which was full of well defended big cities.
he laid siege, you dont need a genius to do that, he lasted like 7 months trying to conquer tyre

>Do you actually think the persians didn't have proffessional soldiers?
it seem they didnt

>How do you explain the bulk of the macedonian forces not being composed of trained soldiers?
do you have any source of that claim?
philip ii picked good trained soldiers from macedonia and greek cities

>How do you explain the actual records we have of Alexander's genius turning the tide of battles?
the problems is their enemy was weak and very poorly trained, philip ii saw that when cyrus the younger marched with 10k mercenaries

>How do you explain the unmatched speed of his campaign?
see above

my english is not good but there you have it

when did he lose a major engagement?

>taxes were too high
How is this pointing to a crumbling empire?

>achaemenid soldiers werent trained and didnt want to fight for the achaemenids
>muh mass levies meme
The Achaemenid Empire at the time had an extremely diverse, well-equipped and experienced army. They could draw the best archers from the core of Persia and the world's best heavy cavalry from Bactria. From Mesopotamia, the Zagros and the Caucasian territories they could deploy footmen. Darius even had Hoplite mercenaries. If the Achaemenid army really was as shit as you make it out to be, more martial bordering cultures, like the Dahae, the Parni, the Saka or even the Indians would have pushed their shit in. But they could not and they did not.

Yeah, you're a Crash Course History type of guy, aren't you?
>He wasn't a good general
His abilities as a commander, both tactical and strategic, are both proven and undeniable. Several times, his direct intervention on the battlefield made the difference between victory and defeat for his men. He was able to made snap decisions in the middle of combat, again and again, resulting in mounting victories. He was extremely adaptable, from fighting fellow Hellenes, Scythian armies that fought entirely on horseback, the Persian armies, each of which was different from the last. His mistakes almost killed him on more than a dozen occasions, but he wasn't killed in battle. And he never lost.

>he just had good soldiers
Some of the best, actually, of the ancient world. Well-equipped and drilled soldiers. You got that one right.

>that fought inexperienced soldiers
Untrue. I'm going to take it that John Green's benevolent, tolerant, and well-meaning Persians never had to fight a single battle to carve an empire out of possibly the two most hotly-contested places on the planet: The Middle East, and the Iranian Plateau. They had plenty of elite cavalry, homegrown heavy infantry, and enough Greek hoplite mercenaries to give Alexander's phalanx a fair fight toe-to-toe. To suggest that the Persians didn't have any kind of professional military is absurd. What do you think they had been doing for the past HUNDRED years? Nothing? Not slaughtering rebellious satraps and their armies? Not conquering new land by virtue of "might makes right"? Not establishing an empire that would rule from India to Egypt?

Try reading some books and doing some research, kid. Before you make a bold and definitive declaration, at least make sure it won't make you look like a fucking half-wit.

Pic related is a good place to start. Find out some shit about these guys, then come back to Veeky Forums and tell us what you learned.

.t An Absolute Persiaboo

>Phoenicia

yeah I've never understood the "persian troops = literally useless" meme. they conquered basically everything they touched and spent money on bringing anyone they couldn't beat into their army

Not him but downplaying Philip's role in Alexander's conquest is pretty stupid. The tactics, the commanders and generals, the training, the equipment updates and enhancements, were all directed by Philip.

>literally no Cyrus, Darius, or any Persian generals mentioned there in that image

You have got to actually be retarded. There's just no other explanation.

>I know some history
Clearly not on the subject you're trying to talk about

>tax were too high, that fucked them up, people at first didnt mind that much because they just ask tax and leave them alone
People were upset that they were paying taxes at all. They didn't want to be ruled, but being a client state was far more agreeable than being no state. But that hardly constitutes a crumbling empire. Imagine: any dissenting factions in your country mean it's on the verge of collapse. Is that even a remotely credible statement?

>because they were trained and achaemenid soldiers werent trained and didnt want to fight for the achaemenids
What are: literally any of the martial cultures comprising the Persian Empire? Medians? With extremely famous cavalry. Mardians? Famous for the archers? Hyrkanians, whose hallmark in war is axemen? Forget about Syria's history of archery? Persia's archers, their cavalry, their heavy cavalry? Maybe you didn't know that Babylon fielded heavy spearmen well into the Hellenistic period? Maybe you forgot about Baktria, whose cavalry were the envy of most of the planet, so much so that Baktrian horses were imported to China to be used in their wars. You have no concept that there were cultures past the Bosporus besides a MUH PERSIANS meme.

>it seem they didnt
Just...just see above. God damn it.

>do you have any source of that claim?
>philip ii picked good trained soldiers from macedonia and greek cities
Yes, Phillip's army was comprised mainly of Macedonians and Thessalians and the surrounding Thracian tribes. However, once Alexander managed to get through Kilikia and into Syria, the proportion of native Macedonians to outsiders started to shrink from casualties, garrisons, and the fact that he was recruiting natives to his army. There are several notable accounts of Macedonian officers and generals growing upset at the number of foreigners in the army.

you gotta be a pretty big deal to have an era named after you
victoria,edward,napoleon all got it

The point of the image was to learn about famous generals and conquerors in a wider sense, not about the Persians. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Pic related is on the list. Happy now?

This guy gets it.

(cont.)

>the problems is their enemy was weak and very poorly trained, philip ii saw that when cyrus the younger marched with 10k mercenaries

Neither army was poorly-trained or equipped, actually. Both employed skirmishers, heavy infantry, Greek mercenaries, and the hallmark variety of cavalry that the Persians had used since they were a satrap under Media. Whatever the Persians could pay or field, they did. This includes levied infantry, but it also includes some of the most battle-hardened soldiers from across three thousand miles of warring cultures.

>see above
Yeah, I'm still not seeing any kind of credible argument from you, from any of the above material.

2/10 made me post more than once

>one in a billion
>one in a billion
Where does that lead to learning about x when the whole thing was glorifying the list? And yet somehow includes Alexander is if *no* one knows about him? Doesn't make sense.

Here we go, folks.

>Plenty of people have done that.
literally not more than 1,000.
Out of 500 billion people that lived.

>take on the greatest and richest empire in the world
>it doesn't count because with 2000 years of history behind us, we can know it was actually in decline and that internal politics played a part in its downfall
Do you think Alexander looked it up on google before lauching an invasion?

Oh my god that 4th one is so triggering

> What is the historic method?
> What are secondary sources

He knew the empire was weak, philip ii knew it, that is why he prepared to invade it

You are actually retarded.

Why you guys are so triggered?

I have read about alexander and he doesnt look like a god-war general, its recorded persians were poorly trained and darius iii was incompetent, philip ii could do it, hell anyone could do it

Even cyrus the younger with those 10k mercenaries could have destroyed the achaemenid empire.

Alexander just had the right army and at the right moment, he wouldnt have pulled that shit at the sassanids

Alexander wasnt a general at the same level as hannibal, scipio and napoleon, deal with it

He was still high born which allowed him to be an officer in the army when the revolution happened.

>hannibal
He's a complete meme, one good battle does not a legend make

>Hannibal
>one good battle

>same level as hannibal, scipio and napoleon
Oh, please.

>caesar, suvorov and eugene one in a million
>hannibal and alexander one in a billion
>subutai one in a trillion
"no"

Top kek I love Veeky Forums

>electricity went off
how does it feel being a third worlder?

Darius had tens of thousands of greek mercenary infantry in his employ. For his calvalry he had central asian tribesmen and cataphracts who consisted of some of the best mounted troops of the era. Alexander would have difficulty reigning them in in the years following the death of Darius. In addition the persians had thousands of chariots that could wreak havoc on the open field, and chariot teams weren't comprised of peasant farmers with rakes. As for experience, the persians had been fighting rebellions in egypt for years at that point.

>posts retarded shit
>multiple anons catch on to your retardation
>l-lmao b-b-butthurt!

instead of some steppeniggers doing it it was a Mediterranean trade center that wrote everything down

>he wasnt a good general

>All he did was conquer some empire
Alexander's conquest of Persia had a profound and unprecedented impact on world history. Other conquests that might compare are ones that took place over a huge span of time (centuries) with hundreds of key individuals facilitating it, like the Conquest of the Americas. Alexander's conquest by comparison took place almost overnight, and yet it had earth-shifting effects that can still be seen today. Maybe if you read a fucking book you'd "get" it. You don't have to worship him, but you'd have to be a dim-witted moron to not see his importance.

>literally not more than 1,000.
Who conquered a continental size empire? Not even 20.

He was completely incompetent, had no leadership abilities, had only been a satrap/governor for a short time before his kinsmen, Atraxerxes III, had been assassinated by Bagoas and Darius III's actual reknown stems from him being a well known fighter and soldier in the Persian army in his youth. He was completely incapable of governing or managing the empire even before Alexander's invasion, satraps were ignoring commands from him, and the only reason the empire had yet to burst at its seams was because his predecessor was actually extremely competent in the vein of Darius I.

I never understood the hype. Yea he was good general but did nothing else except create bungled mess of kingdoms who fought with each other afterwards. For me most important thing is to build a lasting legacy.

>For me most important thing is to build a lasting legacy.
2300 years after he died his impact on human history is being debated via electronic impulses on an imageboard by people across the globe.

Doesn't change the fact that his conquests died with him.

>Why are you guys so triggered?

Not triggered, just in the mood to pull your ignorant self through the mud to show you some highlights of the world you've never cared to learn about.

>I have read about alexander
John Green doesn't count

>he doesnt look like a god-war general
Hanniboos say the same shit about Scipio, who never lost a battle either

>its recorded persians were poorly trained and darius iii was incompetent
Surely no man in history had a general staff or competent commanders in his army, or god forbid even mercenaries or the various professional militaries of the lands they rule. To debunk this, the Greeks also claimed that the Persians used slave armies and literally chained their soldiers together to keep them in formation, something that nobody else in the whole ancient world ever claimed, and has never been depicted in any art or attested to by anyone in the Perisn Empire at any point. Perhaps that might be untrue, then?

>Even cyrus the younger with those 10k mercenaries could have destroyed the achaemenid empire.
Please read the Anabasis for further debunking of your retarded opinions on this matter.

>Alexander just had the right army and at the right moment
That and a great deal of other factors, one in particular, his tactical prowess.

>he wouldnt have pulled that shit at the sassanids
Hmmm...probably not. Considering the Sassanids had about 800 years of technological development to get an edge from. Namely steel. And, you know, basically everything else that comes from being 800 years advanced compared to your enemies. Imagine saying that the Native Americans probably wouldn't have been able to fight the guys from Starship Troopers. 800 years difference.

Stop posting. Please. Go back to Brazil.

> 3 European examples

Napoleon Bonaparte
Adolf Hitler
Belisarius

> lots of Asian Examples
Temujin
Mehmed II
Nurhaci
Li Shimin
Zhu Yuanzhang
Zhao Kuangyin
Timur
Babur

> 1 MesoAmerican
Pachacuti

I have never watch that germanic cuck, it seems you have a hard on for alexander, you are blind and you think he was a great tactician, he didnt fought agaisnt good trained people so you cant say he is good

Stop riding his dick so much

He is nothign compared to scipio, Hannibal, caesar or sargon

It really isn't. People thinking that he was defeated at the Persian Gates are flat out wrong. He encircled and slaughtered all of them even if he initially suffered some big casualties.

There are a lot of butt-hurt Medes on Veeky Forums. The Hellenic world rolled over the degenerate East. Deal with it.

> Alexander is overrated.

>number 6
>expecting the king of hard drinking mountain men to be a sober pansy

>I have never watch that germanic cuck
I would be willing to put money down that you have and that's where most of what you're saying actually comes from, a 10 minute youtube meme.

>it seems you have a hard on for alexander
Not as much as I do for Persia with all its diverse and rich history up until Islam.

>you are blind and you think he was a great tactician
So...I know more about both Alexander and the Persian Empire than you do, and I'm blind? Clearly you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

> he didnt fought agaisnt good trained people so you cant say he is good
Please stop with this meme. I have provided more than enough examples of Persian military professionalism at the time, including Hellenes used as mercenaries that were as battle-hardened as Alexander's phalanx.

>Stop riding his dick so much
When you get off your high horse's cock, we'll be on even ground again.

>He is nothign compared to scipio, Hannibal, caesar or sargon
Aside from Scipio, you have named three men who both inherited or were given their armies and wealth, at times fought vastly underpowered militaries and fractured states, and lost battles. Sargon's military history can't be attested to in detail because most of the records about him have been lost, and the other half are literal mythical tales about him that themselves are incomplete. Please excuse me while I wait for the next ignorant claim to come off your keyboard.

>who was herman the german who defeated 3 roman legions at the height of romes empire forever changing the future of europe

God ,I hate this faggot
But i still watch his videos because i like the maps

>his father already did all the hard work for him

phillip only really conquered greece tho