Why isn't Alexander the Great remembered as being a monster like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler?

Because he was not a fucking cis straight male.

People also tend to portray them as fighting honorable affairs at the flattest plains too. In fact this was what people thought they did for the longest time.

While in reality the Greeks fought wars in very bloodthristy manner. Hans van Wees came up that the casualty rate in Greek battles was about 5% for the victors and 15% for the losers and much higjer in ambushes and surprise attacks. John Dayton pointed out that this casuelty rate was higher than those found in the middle ages and the early modern period. In fact the Greeks took joy in murdering their opponents, they casually murdered civilans and prisoners and conquered cities tended to face their bloodlust. It was also common to murder all adult men and sell the rest to slavery.

I dont know if the Macedonians waged war that way.

He was the king of Asia as promised by the knot of gordon

Thats all standard fair in the classical age because they didn't accept hemaphrodites in the bathrooms they should be in.

I think it was a combination of the greeks being really good at propaganda and making them selfs look like the cool guys and the fact the both the greeks and the mongolians were both successful. In mongolia Genghis Khan is actually viewed as this really cool dude that was just too much of a MAN to not conquer land. Out of the 3 you mentioned Hitler was the only one that didn't win anything. so in conclusion, if you killed jews and won a war in the process you'll be considered as a historical figure and potently a hero.

Recommend me some books about our boy Alex

He didn't indiscriminately slaughter whole cities on the regular or commit genocide. Genghis Khan and Hitler have way bigger body counts as well.

>People also tend to portray them as fighting honorable affairs at the flattest plains too.
nigger that whole idea comes from a throwaway line in the Histories where Mardonius is trying to convince Darius that the Greeks are pants on head retarded
Stop spewing LITERALLY 2500 year old memes

literally not true. He treated Darius with the Utmost respect when finding his body covering it with his own cloak, allowed his wives to live happy peaceful lives, and terribly tortured and punished the man that betrayer of Darius (Bessus).

Genghis Khan was extremely merciful. You people need to read a book.

I don't remember Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler being "monsters"

Because Alexander killed browns.
Genghis Khan killed yellows/browns/whites.
Hitler killed whites and jews.

Probably because the Mongols had a habit of literally killing everyone they could in entire cities, and publicly raping thousands of women and girls in public.

Probably because Hitler had millions of noncombatants exterminated

Meanwhile, the worst things you can say about Alexander, you could say about any Napoleon-tier conqueror. Something something he was a dick who may have killed people on a personal level or led to the deaths of thousands in the way that war always does. Your family passing down a story about how your great grandfather died in a battle against Alexander forms a different sort of cultural reaction then a story about how your great grandmother and all her sisters were raped in public and then exterminated while your grandparents fled in the wilderness being chased by horse riders like some shitty LOTR scene.

Who are other conquerors on the scale of Napoleon and Alexander?

>raping women in front of their sons, father and husbands is merciful
fuck off

Cyrus the Great, easily. Maybe someone Like Julius Caesar. Too many possibilities to consider them all very fast.

>I can't read

no need to announce it to everyone, user

Muawiyah I, Mehmet II, Juilus Caesar, Charlemagnes

Because Hellenic culture was superior so it was a net benefit. Same goes for French culture and Napoleon.

because he was sexy.

1) he brought a biographer with him everywhere.
2) his best friends ruled the conquered lands for generations so PR stayed positive
3) the romans took over, appreciated his accomplishments, and kept PR positive.

so we have 700 years of positive PR baked into western culture. critical theory doesn't pop up for another 1400 years.

but the Alexander vs Hitler meme is now out there, waiting for its day in the sun. in 100 years there will be no more Alex Magnus statues because he was omg literally hitler i can't even

What about tyre?

Epic

The aftermath is bad, obviously, by pretty much any of the accounts. But it was also fairly unusual for him, and a one off event didn't manage to define the rest of his conquests. On top of that it barely compared to the regular accounts of public mass rape and execution you see by the mongols from Russia to China.

Antiquity is so easily romanticized, look at people idolizing Achilles even though the entirety of the Iliad is about how he's a blood thirsty monster and the living embodiment of war's evil.

But what was his tax policy?

a) he paved the way for the roman empire b) his conquests brought hellenic and jewish cultures in contact, that´s the framework of christianity

>Alexander killed browns.
Citation needed.

But I'm not? I'm saying that scholars, until recently, held the idea that the Greeks fought via unwritten rules and fought limited warfare in order to limit the bloodshed. This is a view still held in high regard by people like Victor Davis Hanson.

However, when scholars took a more critical look at the sources they found out that this whole ritualized warfare business was nothing but a fantasy made up by scholars. In fact a lot of it comes from later sources writing of an idolized past. But in reality the Ancient Greeks were pretty brutal themselves. They often chased their opponents with glee and it may have been their actual true goal when engaging in battle:

>For, you know, when states defeat their foes in a battle, words fail one to describe the joy they feel in the rout of the enemy, in the pursuit, in the slaughter of the enemy. What transports of triumphant pride! What a halo of glory about them! What comfort to think that they have exalted their city! Everyone is crying: `I had a share in the plan, I killed most'; and it's hard to find where they don't revel in falsehood, claiming to have killed more than all that were really slain. So glorious it seems to them to have won a great victory! Xen. Hiero 2.15-16

A lot of battles you see the victorious Greeks chasing the losing Greeks as far as they can. In fact they dedicated trophies to the massacre that took place following the chase. Siege warfare was also a nasty work for those finding themselves in the aftermath of siege.

Alexander was a fucking nigger desu.
>invade great civilisations
>destroy them for no good reason
>build nothing in their place
He was a mistake.

Persians, Levantines and Pajeets.

Hellenistic era was the Americanization/globalization of its time. Ever notice how so many ancient civilizations from Carthage to fucking Media uses those fucking Greek column orders instead of something unique? You have Alexander to thank for that.

>Alexanders army walking across the desert
>have no water
>one of his soldiers find a puddle of water
>says that alexander should have it because he is the king
>alexander tells him to go and get the water for him
>soldier brings back his helmet with the water in it and gives it to alexander
>alexander says if there is not enough water for his army there is not enough water for himself and that he will go through the hardship with them
>poors the water out
Thats why.

>wanting to fight back against foreigners and secure and existence for your people so they can live in peace and prosperity
>monster

Who cares about fucking columns? He was a generic warlord who cared only for conquest, if he cared about the people he would have devised a system of governance that would have outlived him. Instead his empire descended into civil war and set back the entire region by centuries. We can only imagine what would have happened if they had been left alone.

>>Alexanders army walking across the desert
>>have no water
>>poors the water out

Have you ever read anything about Alexander? He did create a system of governance that outlived him...by 500 years. The civil wars wouldve happened even if he did have an heir, there were way too many powerful generals in his army. But his roads, taxation systems and cultural impact lasted for centuries and were merely adapted by the Romans and new Persians.
>set back the entire region by centuries.
how? Egypt, Greece and Persia remained rich and full of cultural progress way until the Romans conquered them. They were making Hermes/Thoth cults!
People seriously downplay the intellect of this guy. He was one of Aristotle's pupils and he seriously took some of his teachings to heart. He envisioned a Hellenic world where everyone would use the same language and the same coins. He wasnt superstitious like his generals, and he was a downright scientist-as realizing that rain isnt "bad omen from the gods" but just normal phenomenon which is an obstacle to work around. He was a remarkable compassionate person and sought to learn everything he could from the people he conquered, even mountain peasants he didnt even have to lift a finger against. His ambition and vision are unrivaled in history. No one has seen so much and changed the world so much at that young of an age. He also did it drunk.

Genghis Khan was a monster? Adolf was a monster? Alexander was a monster? Leftypol detected.

best post in thread

>He did create a system of governance that outlived him...by 500 years
>there were way too many powerful generals in his army
Sounds like he did a pretty shit job of governance, doesn't it? If it's true he said on his deathbed that his empire should go to the strongest, he literally had no concern for it by ordering a civil war. His system didn't last 1 year.

system of governance means a "system" that "governs" not who governs. Take another undergrad class you fucking pleb

I was criticizing Alexander but apparently you're too low IQ to comprehend basic English. Being equated to an American is NEVER a good thing.

A system that allows generals to easily rebel and tear the empire apart? Real fuckin' masterpiece, that one. How dense are you?

They backstabbed him, treachery isn't some kind of systematic fault.

It is, in a decent system there are checks and balances that would prevent that kind of thing, or at least make it very difficult.

Every single great empire has had rebellion. Whats your point?

Governing thousands of ethnicities is hard, but im sure a mastermind like you can figure out something better.

But he himself was check and balance, he just couldn't stop them after he died. It was absolutely fooled proof until it isn't.

The US had checks and balances and we still had a civil war. Take an intro to logic class you WVU cousin fucker

All these salty faggots still can't accept that an empire that barely outlives its founder is objectively shit.

You shouldn't govern if people rebel. Rebellion is proof of your lack of administrative talent.

But the empire existed before him and he just expanded it?

He often is - depends on the society you grew up in, but often, even in western society, when someone rattles off a list of evil conquerors, Alex will be right up there. Napoleon too. Hell, Kirk puts him on the list one Star Trek episode.

From a detached perspective, you can note that Alex left a whole lotta civilization in his wake - though you can say much the same of Napoleon's reforms, save, in Alex's case, it was so long ago he became largely responsible for the civilizations that followed during his short life.

Still killed a fuckload of people, and sure as hell was a monster by pacifist's standards, and to anyone on the pointy side of his stick, many of which remember him as a monster to this day.

Except the people didnt rebel. A few generals did because they wanted to be the next Alexander, not because his system was inherently broken.

>Mehmet II
Fuck no he isn't
His greatest achievement was conquering a city that was already in ruins and could barely defend itself. Not to mention he got humiliated by Vlad the Impaler.

Genghis Khan isn't remember as a monster though. So your shitty premise is wrong.

He only did it once because nobody else had the balls to revolt. The entire time he was in Asia nobody dared start shit. Not only did he torture countless people, he forced an entire empire to learn greek. Nothing ghenghis khan did could compare to learning the filthy olive oil language.

He is by Persians.

Genghis Khan is actually, in some regions, portrayed quite favourably, as a wise rules, in some as a powerhungry warlord.

The difference between these guys is that Hitler did his shit during a time when even the common people were literate, rather than those who were under the payroll of their leaders.

nope not true

HITLUR DINDU NUFFEN

>murdering millions of civilians
>not a monster

Simply put, it was because Alexander's massacres and atrocities were the exception in his conquests, whereas for the mongols it was standard procedure.
Also, Alexander spread greek culture and language wherever he went, while the mongols spread nothing but death, misery and disease and left little to no cultural impact before being assimilated by the people they conquered.

He literally went on an autistic revenge quest after Darius' killer.

what, your argument -go read a book?
great user, just great

>forced an entire empire to learn greek
no he didnt. In fact most people in his empire didnt speak greek, but they had to learn it if they wanted to trade with anyone outside their tribe.
>filthy olive oil language
You mean the first concise and logical language ever invented? The one on which the English language is based on? The one the bible was written in? Yeah horror.

Because he's /ourguy/

Genghis Khan is a national hero in Mongolia, Mehmet II is highly-regarded in Turkey, Timur in Turkestan and Columbus in Italy. Good and evil is a question of point-of-view.

Alexander only killed P*rsians and liberated many people from their empire.

Because he was Croatian brave, not some kraut or chink subhuman

>Unifier of China is regarded as a tyrant and a villain by his own people.
Lol.

Russia puts civilian in uniforms and tell them to fight without training or guns
German kill those civilians and became monsters

Chinese really enjoy being divided in even number of nation states

Not really considering how existentially important that a unified realm existed for a Chinese according to Tianxia/All Under Heaven political philosophies.

They just thought the King of Qin went about unifying the country in a dickish way.

Qin tried to erase Confucianism, Confucianism became state ideology for the next 2000 years

because he won

>"just because"
>Bee Philotas
>plan to murder alexander
>shit talk him to boot with a prostitute

No

Thid

>wanting to fight back foreigners from their own land by taking it from them.

Pompey

>a monster like Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler?
you forgot to add Napoleon

>The west later lapped this up and accepted the meme.
Nice theory, but no. He's as much of a legendary figure in the east. It's not because of western influence that they still remember him as Sikandar and name their kids him in Pakistan/Afghanistan/India/whatevers.

>Persians
>brown

Not just the Persians. Everyone in Western Asia and the Middle East hates the Mongols; Arabs, Indians, Turks, etc...

This post wins you the prize of clueless tard of history. Alexander's conquest sparked Hellenism, an area of unprecedented intellectual activity that won't be matched in 2000 years

Based resurgent Persians and other Easterners wiping out Hellenism from Western Asia.

Because enough time has passed.

Yeah so based, god you’re pathetic, grow up manchild and take the hit

Yes, that's what the people Genghis conquered should've done

Running most of Greece and running the entirety of the Persian empire are two very different things senpai

>entire cities count as nothing