Modern times Persians hatred of Alexander

[marios]

It is truly amazing, their claim of the de struction of the Aveda and the anger associated with it could only be justified if they were still believers of Ahura Mazda.They are not, the force which destroyed their religion is not Alexander but Islam.Their claim of the destruction of their civilization by Alexander is not justified. Civilizations remain intact through their written records and accounts of which precious little has survived if indeed ever existed.
I have met a number of well educated Iranians who do not recognise the immense good Alexander's expedition has offered the world and they still consider him a thug.

[ruthaki]

Awhile back, I think it was on the advent of the first Gulf War, I had a letter to the editor published in which I outlined some of Alexander's exploits in that part of the world. I ended up getting a phone call from an Iranian man who wanted to argue on these exact points that you have written about. Of course I kept up a good defence for ATG and in the end he invited me to his restaurant for Iranian food. I was surprised at the time, how angry this man was about the burning of the books at Persepolis etc.

[Jeanne]

Actually, there are still practicing Zoroastrians, so that's a little misleading. And whether or not there are doesn't exonerate ATG from what he did.I think a little balance in perspective is a good thing. Yes, ATG did some good. And *yes*, he did some bad. The conquest of Persia was the Greco-Macedonian side. From the Persian point of view, is was the LOSS of Persia. Just as "how the west was won" is, to the American Indian, "how the west was lost." And nothing (and I mean *nothing*) justifies the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre, and the butchery at Wounded Knee. Those are black marks and will always be black marks. But does the fact that Andrew Jackson put his stamp of approval on the removal of the Five Civilized tribes in a horrific march from the American SE to Oklahoma undo the positive things accomplished in his time of office? Absolutely not.Same thing applies to ATG.History is rarely either/or, and we need to look at it realistically, not with rose-colored glasses, political or religious agendas, or undue hero worship. Alexander was, ultimately, just a man, whatever he wanted to believe about himself. He made mistakes.Dr. Jeanne

[Dimitri]

And nothing (and I mean *nothing*) justifies the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre, and the butchery at Wounded Knee But the Indians did not invade the United States and burn down Washington and hold certain American states to tributory status.The GrecoMacedonians had very justifiable reasons to seek revenge for some of Persia's past actions.Though then as now some times people get a little carried away with seeking justice for past humiliations. ATG was a Great man despite his imperfections.

[Link]

The Macedonians also had very justifiable reasons to seek revenge against Thebes, Athenians and the greko mercinaries because of their assistance to Persia as well.Those grekos spoke with a forked tounge.

[Dimitri]

Read the account of Arrian.Thebes was hated by the Greek world for its past support of Persia and much of the slaughter was done by Greek allies that were held in subjegation by Thebes.And then, in hot blood, it was not so much the Macedonians as Phocians and Plataeans and the other Boeotians who slaughtered the Thebans without restraint; even when they no longer offered resistance, some in their houses GǪ [others] actually supplicant at the shrines;- they spared neither woman nor child Thebes deseved what it got Thebes wants power and will do whatever it takes to get it, even if it means befriending states that it had previously fought against, or even argued for the complete destruction of. For example, after Athens' conquest at the hands of Sparta, we see Thebes calling for Athens' complete destruction. Yet, a short while later, Thebes is helping build Athens' walls and is fighting on the field against the same enemy as Athens

[Link]

Ok, try Diodorus. If the Spartans were mice, then Thebes was just a pimple. The Macedonian army gave it to them good and to all of those other Grekos that supported the Persians, who fought or conspired against Macedonia. Athens and a lot of cities were up to its neck in collaboration with the Persians. All Grekos everywhere got what they deserved, Athens got let off too lightly. btw We shouldn't refer to the people of Athenians, Thebans etc of that time as Greeks, Greacians etc. These "G" words were a term used centuries later by Romans to describe those invading people that lived on the edge of their country. We do not call the Inca people Spanish or Latin before the ships went there and we can not be sure that the Hellens are those same people called Greek (or whatever "G" word you want to use).

[ruthaki]

And don't forget the Persians had long before invaded Greece and the Greek territories. ruthaki

[marcus]

Yeeeeeessss... but Xerxes invasion was a good hundred and fifty years before Alexander. That's not to say that, from the Greeks' point of view, there wasn't justification for the invasion, but it was a bit of a dodgy argument.We mustn't forget also that Isocrates couldn't really care less about the idea of revenge - his argument was that the only way to stop Greeks fighting themselves was to gang up against an enemy... and the Persian empire was considered a bit of a soft target.All the bestMarcusPS: Pela, you're getting dangerously close to veering away from reasonable argument and starting an unworthy argument.

[yiannis]

Oh, Pella. You're so predictable...

[yiannis]

I also think that Persian's hate of Alexander is justifiable from the point of view that he did conquered their lands and destroyed the Persian empire.
But it's a grudge that it's stretching too far if you ask me, 2200 years!Of course the claim that Alexander's campaign was to revenge the Persian invasion of Greece, was a mere excuse.
But perhaps the claim, that the Persians had some involvement in his father's murder, was not just an excuse!

[beausefaless]

With a good part of the Persian empire with some of the toughest topographical terrain in the world? The logistics alone that Alexander and Hephaistion who turned out to be better at logistics and diplomacy than military combat strategy, and Curtius says he was the king's counselor, these logistics worked out all through Alexander's campaigns was ingenious to say the least. Any other army at that time would have been slaughtered before they reached Halicarnassus. Why did the Romans have had one huge bear of a time trying to consolidate the eastern provinces for their rule. Soft target, no way.
Good talking with you again
All the best,
Andrew

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,I don't disagree with you at all - but the Greeks (as evidenced by Isocrates) *believed* Persia was a soft(ish) target. Not that I would wish to diminish Alexander's genius, but when you look at the way in which he charged through the empire, right up to the point when he got bogged down in the eastern satrapies... I imagine the postcards home wouldn't have argued that much with Isocrates, either!All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

Marcus, I don't believe that when old-Isocrates was calling for a pan-Hellenic campaign agaist the Persians, he had in mind the utter destruction of the Persian empire. Not even Philip himself.
Most likelly, they would venture in Asia Minor, take the Ionian cities, maybe even try something in Egypt, where the Greeks had interests and knew the situation since long ago. (Remember Agesilaos, he went to Asia Minor, defeated the Persians there with ease, but had to return to Sparta because of unrest in Greece http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/clas ... 1_txt.html)It was Alexander's "Pothos" that took the campaign to the end, everyone else would have stopped half-way, happy with what he'd accomplished!

[marcus]

Hi Yiannis,Quite possibly. But it doesn't take away the fact that Persia was considered rather soft - not least because Agesilaos had had so much success there.All the bestMarcus