All about Alexander the Great
https://www.pothos.org/forum/
Paralus, I can't take it anymore. You are really destroying my dreams.Paralus wrote: The entire exercise was, at best, disingenuous. There are other terms for such activity on a forum....
My essay is already finished.Semiramis wrote: Asander,
Gratitude.Semiramis wrote: Asander, perhaps you should be grateful I'm not marking your essay.
Very early on actually.Asander wrote:Finally you figure it out.Paralus wrote: Faith as history.
As I'm certain it was when you began the thread. I hope it turned out well.Asander wrote: My essay is already finished.
Thank you.
Yes actually.Asander wrote:Don't you have better things to do, I wonder?
Though not necessarily this.Asander wrote:If I want to date with three women simultaneoulsy, I will do that because I can.
Asander wrote:I don't want to write nonsenses
Regarding the unity of mankind, no one has yet convinced me that is just a nonsense and nothing more. Because there are so many controversated theorys about Alexander, it's ridiculous to say that one theory is a nonsense and the others isn't.spitamenes wrote:Asander wrote:I don't want to write nonsenses
No. When it comes to the subject of Alexander, there truely is nothing more I would like to believe than his conquests were for the equality of mankind, or more for the original question, that he believed in the equality of mankind himself. The killing and the selling of tens of thousands of human beings is enough to convince ME that equality was not his top priority. But... we really DON'T know his true intentions, there is a chance that he believed what he was doing really WAS for the common good. The end justifies the means, so to say.Asander wrote: Was Alexander, a king, equal with his subjects and peoples that he conquered?
Except that the "oath" you quoted is nonsense. It was fabricated 2,000 years after Alexander's death. You cannot argue it any other way.Asander wrote:Regarding the unity of mankind, no one has yet convinced me that is just a nonsense and nothing more. Because there are so many controversated theorys about Alexander, it's ridiculous to say that one theory is a nonsense and the others isn't.spitamenes wrote:Asander wrote:I don't want to write nonsenses
Regarding E. Badian, he is simply destroying both reputations of Alexander and Tarn.
For my essay, I have already chosen Tarn.
Exactly - you can hear the sarcasm literally dripping!Semiramis wrote:Marcus,
Demosthenes: "Alexander can be the son of Zeus and of Poseidon if he wishes."Marcus wrote:And it should be remembered that many of the Greeks were far from keen on Alexander. At best they acceded to granting him divine worship because it made no difference to them; at worst they did it because they were terrified of him.
About Demades (one who proposed the idea): "He feared for his opponents. Lest in begrudging Alexander the heavens, they be removed from the Earth by him."
The Spartans: "We agree that Alexander be called a god if he wishes."
Indeed, my point exactly.Semiramis wrote:I would say any empire is oppressive and the history of Egypt's rebellions are indication that the Egyptians could not tolerate the yolk for too long at a time. However, coming back to the bull - in her book "The Persians", Maria Brosius mentions an inscription from a relatively recent find. Here, Xerxes proclaims that he has honoured the Apis Bull in the proper way. Having come across this I have lost faith in the popular story of Xerxes slaughtering the Bull.Marcus wrote:"Well, the idea of Persian oppression in Egypt was exaggerated in order to make Alexander's regime change seem more palatable. Admittedly, the Egyptians didn't want to be ruled, and they appear to have welcomed Alexander; but the only real example of "oppression" was the killing of the Apis Bull by the Persians, which it seems probably didn't happen."
As I've mentioned before, there's no good reason that I can see to doubt the tablet. It's contemporaneous to the event. Either act - honouring or slaying - would have been done by Xerxes for symbolic and propagandistic value. So, there's no reason for him to do one thing and declare another. It appears Herodotus may have gotten carried away with a bit of war propaganda on this one.
Yep, I agree with you there! Apologies, Paralus!Semiramis wrote:Paralus,
Looks like you hadn't been too harsh after all.
You originally asked if it was nonsense about Alexander believing in equality. And that you didn't want to write nonsense, then you say that its ridiculus to call Any theory nonsense. I just don't know what your asking for.Asander wrote: Regarding the unity of mankind, no one has yet convinced me that is just a nonsense and nothing more.
marcus,marcus wrote: As for "choosing" Tarn ... well, enough said.
ATB
Yes, originally I asked about the equality, but the disscusion advanced. Then I've asked about the unity of mankind. Then I've said that it's ridiculus to call any theory a nonsense.spitamenes wrote:You originally asked if it was nonsense about Alexander believing in equality. And that you didn't want to write nonsense, then you say that its ridiculus to call Any theory nonsense. I just don't know what your asking for.Asander wrote: Regarding the unity of mankind, no one has yet convinced me that is just a nonsense and nothing more.
Many guys should read this post again, and again, and again.spitamenes wrote: But... we really DON'T know his true intentions, there is a chance that he believed what he was doing really WAS for the common good.