Hypocrasy and Bigotry

[iskander_32]

CompanionsWith reading viewpoints on Alexander and his conquests some comparing Him tp Hitler.
Its bigotry and unfair,it also takes Alexander from context I feel for Alexander it was to conquer or to be conquered.Every succesful civilisation throughout history has been based on conquests, although unsavoury its the essence of civilisation and its succes.Scholrs ridicule the extent of Alexanders and all the destruction caused on the Persian Empire.Lets not forget the conquest and destructioncaused by the creation of the Persian Empire or was it all taken by nice methods, I think not its a procees off pecking order. Persia was top dog till Alexander toppled it, but folks lets not be comparing Alexander to Ghengis Jhan or Hitler im sure ther are fundamental differences.Alexanders atrocities were moments of madness, Khans and Hitlers were calculated mass murder.regardskenny

[beausefaless]

Greetings Kenny,When you say Alexanders atrocities were moments of madness, I'm not so sure. Let me take Tyre for an example: Some sources mentioned Alexander's envoys were killed even if this wasn't the case they didn't want him in there doing his sacrifice ceremony and Alexander was on a mission. Control and or destroy Tyre and you control all of the Mediterranean, this was a must to continue east. Taking seven months Alexander was not in a friendly state of mind, who knows, maybe they were calling out a bunch of vulgar words directed at Olympias either way he had to make an example and what better way than to crucify a couple hundred of future rebel's and let them rot. Sam Houston's men decapitated Santa Ana and his officers put their heads on steaks and let them rot but you won't read this in many history books. Examples like these must be made so no further revolutions will spring into action while your moving foward. Alexander felt that he had to send a message to the world that he meant business, war is ugly and there should be no rules. RegardsAndrew

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,I have to agree with you - I would find it very difficult to ascribe Alexander's 'atrocities' as 'moments of madness'. OK, so he didn't engage on a programme of systematic destruction - but nor, for that matter, did Genghis Khan or Hitler.That's not to say that I equate Alexander with Hitler at all, for the ideology underpinning the latter's acts puts him in a totally different league. (I'm not so sure about Genghis Khan - from my limited knowledge I'd say he was extremely similar to Alexander, though).All the bestMarcus

[beausefaless]

Hello Marcus,I completely agree with you on Genghis Khan, when he moved west he would send envoys with gifts willing share everything and their lifestyles would remain the same, his legacy extends well beyond the battlefield. The MongolsGÇÖ promotion of pan-Asian trade, their avid taste for luxury goods, and their practice of relocating artists combined to produce an unprecedented cross-fertilization of artistic ideas throughout Eurasia. The Mongols produced a unique occasion for cultural exchange but their envoys would be killed and all gifts confiscated. You are correct to state Khan was similar to Alexander.All the bestAndrew

[iskander_32]

Sorry GuysI was at the time reading the Article,in the Alexander countdown site,refering to some group been against the movie,witn regard to an emblem been used by Alexander I never got the full gist only comparisons made to hitler.Andrew you are totally right about warfare, what it is and whats done within war, imsure everything goes to achieve your goal.Of coarse to spend & months been agravated by the Tyrians was a pain in the arse and a lesson had to he taught im sure if the had capitulated not a single Tyrian would have died.One difference with the Great Khan, Khan kiledd all his enemies his policy was to leave none alive behind him so they could strike,,, Maybe that policy could have served Athens very well Alexander was forever watching his back with those unreliable turncoats.kenny

[marcus]

I suppose the difference between Alexander and Genghis Khan, from the point of view of killing or sparing enemies, might stem from the cultural background. (Andrew, help out here - you're obviously well versed in the Mongol conquests, too.)You'll recall that Alexander did originally demand that Demosthenes and 9 others be surrendered to him, after the sack of Thebes. After negotiation he rescinded the order/request, insisting only the Charidemos be exiled. If he had chosen to enforce his order, however, I'm not sure that the rest of Greece (not least the other members of the League) would have stood for it; and I don't believe Alexander saw any benefit in acting like the worst kind of tyrant at that stage, when he still required a peaceful Greece behind him when he went to Asia.I don't think Genghis had the same problems or qualms. He had no diplomatic needs behind him, and for a semi-nomadic people the Mongolians didn't really have the governmental infrastructure left behind to keep an eye on things. Also, the mores of the 13 century were a whole lot different from those in 4th century Greece.That's not very detailed, I know - I am supposed to be working, so I'm snatching quick messages where I can! Sorry.All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

Ah, yes one of the 'war crimes.'Alexander's men were burned by molten sand sieging Tyre. Those types of wounds would have been uncleanable and therefore untreatable. Alexander would have watched his soldiers die terribly from infection over a period of time. This stuff affects your mind, but it doesn't make you insane. Alexander called for a brutal revenge, not just a message. And the fact that he did this once, suggests that he knew it was wrong to do so. It is easy to call it a war crime, but it most assuredly didn't feel like it to Alexander and his Macedonians who felt they should give the Tyrians exactly what they gave them. A horrible death.People do not always live up to their expectations of themselves and that happened to Alexander more than he would have ever wanted to admit to himself.

[jan]

Ghenghis Khan means "our Precious Lord".

[agesilaos]

All this does rather beg the question if Alexander and Ghengis Khan committed genocide in the name of good rule or realpolitik just why do you think the Nazis did it? Every European village rased and church full of chidren burnt was to discourage resistance; and in the East there was also a good deal of an eye for an eye, Stalin wasn't exactly Little Lord Fauntleroy. All these men committed similar crimes but Alexander is forgiven because he managed to get a good press, and Ghengis Khan vecause on the whole we are not medievaelists, Hitler is the bogey man of the 20th century (not Unreasonably) and so gets condemned, beyond that he was guilty of the only true 'war crime'; the schmuck lost!The real bloodbaths are in India, after the golden boy's pothos had been thwarted by his unworthy troops on the Hyphasis. though I suspect that there would have been more evidence for systematic massacre earlier in the campaign if Arrian hadn't chosen to make a digest of Ptolemy's rewrite of Kallisthenes hagiography. The vulgate tradition is much more blood stained.

[jan]

The first bloodbath for Alexander was Thebes who dared to oppose him. As a result, he decimated them, after that, Tyre. He continued to systematically weed out opposition to the bitter end. All were either for or against him, as there were few fencestraddlers. It is the way of the Lord. Jesus too has said Ye are either with me or against me as I do not want fencestraddlers. So it is with Divinity.

[Nax]

Honey, it ain't the way of the lord, its the way of ANY regime builder.Just part of our nature, babe- stomp out any dissent- crush any opposition- rule the world. The Big A wasn't divine, he was just born at the right place, right time, right social standing with a big hand from daddy, to start at the top- WOOHEY!!!!! Who does THAT remind me of????- but back to the Big A.. you got it bad

[beausefaless]

Greetings MarcusThe Mongol invasions establishment of Ilkhanid rule in Iran was the introduction such as the dragon and the phoenix.Takht-i Sulaiman (GÇ£Throne of SolomonGÇ¥) is a spectacular example of Ilkhanid secular architecture, I hope this will be part of your tour if you make it to the northwest part of Iran. This is a great example of the merging culture from eastern and western Asia. Marcus I think this is a good example on your point of view of the cultural background stemming from the Mongol conquests.I love the favorite maneuvers of the Mongol offensive attack from all sides, they were master horseman and their expertise with the bow & arrows were second to no one! I believe the name of *Temujin the Great* would also be appropriate for I see many parallels with Alexander.All the best, Andrew

[marcus]

Thanks, Andrew - that's helpful. As I've said, my knowledge of the Mongol invasions is limited (and largely from a Western perspective), coupled with a good (but I don't know how accurate) novel I read a few years ago.But my understanding has always been that our view of the Mongols was inevitably coloured by the western literature, where they were seen just as the Vikings, Huns, Tartars and the various other incoming hordes were - when one learns more one realises that they weren't just bloodthirsty savages.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

I'm with you on this, all the way. Religion - any religion - has been used throughout history as an "excuse" for war and conquests. How many countries and empires have gone into battle "with god on our side?" At least Alexander didn't do this. Sure, he prayed to various gods before battle commenced, but he never used them as the reason for being there in the first place.Linda Ann

[marcus]

Unless you count the assertion that the invasion was undertaken as revenge for Xerxes' desecration of the Greek religious sites ...:-)All the bestMarcus