pothos.org

I appreciate the the forum and feel privaliged to be able to comment. I cannot imagine how a "boy" named Alexander had a huge empire. It seems there are too many people in denial that he was a loser too. He did lose his battle in India and no one seems to mention that. He was bent on "world" domination after his tutor Aristole's influence. What's so great about that? Will people consider Hitler as "Hitler the Great?"

Oh my God!Why now?It is 6.22 am here and by the time i was about to close the page after posting a reply to another thread and at last go to sleep now i see this.
And i have to comment.So here it goes: Alexander did not lose in India, i do not know where did you get this information. Alexander was a youngster (20 years old) when he began conquering the world so that is one of the things that make him Great.He may have been young but he was the brightest and most ambitious man of his age.He could see the entire battlefield in his thought and think of the possible senarios in a very short time (sometimes during battles) and that's one of the things that made him Great. Aristotle influenced Alexander in a lot of things (as Plutarch tells us) but he did not put in his mind the thought of "conquering the world".Philip wanted to invade Persia and Alexander amde it happen.But he went furhter than that.His ambition was even greater. About what you said about Hitler.As i am very tired now i will not go into details.There is not comparison among these two people.It is like hot and cold.But i will continue on this tomorrow (in some hours that is),so for now have a nice night/day.

Thanks for that answer which pretty well covers it. Perhaps Ron needs to do some more reading??? And to compare Alexander to Hitler??? my god!
(Okay, it's late here too and I can't get into it.)

Efsat HailMany congratulations I guess Rons been putting something up his nose. Exactly Alexander had no defaets whatsoever so which Comic book did you find the defeat in India. I dont even call the mutiny a defeat.Comparing Alexander the The Fuhrer. NO qunquerer before or since gave as much bach as Alexander nor were as tollerant as Alexander. His generals were that pissed he shared and involved his Persians and defeated subjects the welcomed his demise.Indeed Alexander was Great the first to ce called such by the Romans and much more evidence to support the claim.Ron I suggest reading a proper bood with varifiable eveidence and sources before you come here making yourself look foolish.
Kenny

Ron you got the India battle thing wrong.Maybe you did not read the history properly.Anyway i suggest you find a good book with historical events (and not analysis) about Alexander's campaign and read it. About Hitler: Everyone is entitled in his/her oppinion.I have heard these things in the past too.If you search the internet you may find some sites that call Alexander "butcher of the nations" and things like that.It depends from what point of view you see it.
The persian empire was a mixture of various nationalities.Egyptians,persians,bactrians,indians e.t.c.Most of these people in the end found in Alexander's image,the liberator.That because Alexander's reign in comparison to the Persian Kings' reign was like day and night.The persian kings became rich out of these nations,but Alexander made them rich with Knowledge.
Those were different times.Warlords often took no prisoners and totally massacred nations.Alexander only in two or three ocassions made things like this.But again he never wiped out populations.he chose to sell them as slaves (which was a common tactic at those times) thus punishing them in this way. Some dark spots in the sun cannot hide it's brightness. Someone could say that Alexander tried to do what the persian kings tried to do when they conquered all these lands.Build an empire ,gain money e.t.c.But that is not quite the truth.Yes Alexander was an imperialist.He made wars.But Alexander brought the light while the persian kings brought darkness.Darius and Xerxes' vision was to enslave the nations and gain wealth and luxuries.When they tempted the greeks with those things they crashed into a brick wall.(ok,at least in Southern greece). But when Alexander brought philosophy,theatre,proper education and knowledge to the persian empire,thus made them to open their eyes,they worshiped him many as a god and others as a liberator.
Alexander's vision was to unite the world in order for all the people to be equal.And that was truly his vision.Some others may claim that they had the same vision but their real purpose was money,interests e.t.c.And that was obvious. Now compare that to Hitler.Day and night. Even today there are people in Asia that talk about Alexander with love.That claim that are descendents from his army.Even today there are people out of greece that claim that Alexander was one of them.E.t.c,e.t.c.
Now tell me.Who nowdays talks like that about Hitler around the world?No one.Even the germans reje

Even the germans reject their past and him.Because he was the dark side of the moon,while Alexander was the sun...

Hitler Thr Great.Do you mean the dictator of the Arian pure blood whewre all else is Inferior and ripe for extermination.Could we see hitler and the Third Riech deafeating the Persian Empire and apointing Persian Satraps in a power sharing multi Cultural world I doubt it.How can any one but a total Idiot compare Hitler To Alexander.Theres aguy here needs a little education with some accurate reading. This guy is remenisent of the guys that clain the Holcaust. A jewish American Conspiracy.Hitler was a half intelligent painter with a mighty fine mouth piece to front the Mazi party of crupts and arms manufacturors. I doubt Hitler had any idea as to what he was doingf nor what hne was signing.Hitlers success was down to great generals and a modern army thats not been bettered since only by the developments of technology.Hitler was only a lunatic with a clever mouth. Alexander was is just GREAT.Kenny

this has been coming up too much and I really don't feel like having the same dicussion over and over again, so i'll just limit myself to a few points.-strictly historically Alexander was great because what he did changed the world to a great extent. He simply is one of those people who clearly prove that those who say that individuals cannot influence the course of history are wrong.-if you take an ethical point of view -which is not the prime task of the historian if you ask me (it rules out 'objectivity')- one can indeed ask serious questions about Alexander's greatness. However, I do not think one can compare him to Hitler because Hitler wanted to kill a specific group of people systematically, while Alexander only killed those who came in his way. Admittedly this might not be a big difference, killing is killing, but one also has to take into account that the general attitude towards war was totally different in Alexander's time. One cannot expect him to have had 20th century pacifist ideas. Hitler on the other hand could have had these ideas. And unfortunately some fools still do think Hitler was great.-saying that Alexander brought light to Asia, while the Achaemenids brought darkness is an ignorant eurocentric view. In Asia many people still call him Alexander the accursed and that is certainly how many inhabitants of the Persian empire saw him. On the other hand he did understand that he had to let the local people play a part in the administration. Even if this was pure opportunism -which it probably was-, it was an idea that not everyone in his time would have had, as we clearly see from the reaction of some of the Macedonian nobles.regards,abm

Thanks to those whom I might have intelligently provoked a "certain" discussion about Alexander and for their thoughts. However, this KENNY character needs some lessons in proper social behaviour since he's absent minded about politeness.Kenny, get a life and learn to speak with people with some respect.I do not wish to retract anything I said in my original posting!Regards to all.

I cannot agree with you over the Hydaspes battle, Alexander definitely won it; how else wouls Seleucus have the territory to swop with Chandragupta for five hundred elephants? The Indians did not defeat him and then say, 'Have the country anyway, we can't be bothered to rule it.'The myth of this defeat stems from Indian sources much later than the events and heavily romanticised. It would be a bit like doing a doctorate in English 19 th century History, but only reading Barbara Cartland novels.Comparisons with Hitler are bound to be fractious, there is a social need to see him as abberant, mad and evil. In fact there are parallels with Alexander. He established many puppet regimes, Vichy France being the most obvious but there were sattelite governments in Bohemia and Moravia, Rumania, Slovakia, Hungary, the Baltic states and Bosnia, to name just a few. His use of overlapping responsibilities and the fostering of internal rivalries can be seen in Alexander's Court, as can fledgling attempts at a police state and central control. It is true that Hitler never elevated himself to the status of God but then God was dead by the time he came to power. This is not to say that Alexander was like Hitler but the structures of supreme power are likely to be similar. Let us not get carried away with the idea that Alexander was a nice chap though he was just as capricious and vicious as Hitler, ask the Branchidae, the Thebans, the mercenaries at the Granikos etc, they may not form a definable pseudo-racial group but they represent traitors to his professed ideals, panhellenism as much as the Jews represent a virus eating away at Hitler's vision of European Kultur. That we can accept the former is only due to the distance in time, ideology will inevitably drag atrocity along in its train.Both men achieved things but Alexander's lasted and that is why he is great and Hitler is not.I agree that a modicum of decorum should be maintained this is not a forum for any but the most polite and academic insults I hope.

RonaldoIts not disrespect to point out stupidity or ignorance. To say Alexander was defeated in India is Stupidity or ignorance.And comparing Alexander to Hitler is out and out stupidity.Alas Karlos... Thebes put an end to centuries of intercity Greek wars and massacre. Alexander didnt do to Thebes what The Greeks hadnt been trying to do to each other for centuries.To kill the Mercenaries at Granicus was both punishing those Traitors who were lining there pockets with Persian gold. As the lines in the Burton movie wen.You Greeks fight for pay go and earn it. As with the Greeks and the other you mentionedit saved watching his back and having to fight the same traitors another time.Please dont call the Greeks not traitors. They took up arms against a Greek having all been bound by the Decloration of the Greek city states. As said times were different then and the Greeks got what was comming.Kenny

Obviously these are your personal opinions, which sources did you derive your final conclusion on this subject. If you can find the time enlighten me on your version of how the battle with Poras went down;
From evil to Baladeva, an associate incarnation of Lord Vishnu, part of the holy trinity of Hindu Gods. -£Baladeva Poornima,GÇ¥ the full moon day of Lord Vishnu. Many parts of India still celebrate the festival the old way by fasting and praying to Lord Vishnu for necessary protection since He is the Sustainer of the Universe.(Shiva is the Destroyer and Brahma is the Creator!!)
It is said that a close lady who was associated with Alexander the Great took an advantage of this tradition. She went to King Poras and adopted him as her religious brother and got a promise that he would not kill Alexander in the battle field. King Poras gave the promise.
There was a clear occasion when Poras could kill Alexander but he did not do that simply because of the promise that he had given to the lady who had tied rakhi on his wrist. Alexander was shocked when King Poras left him alive and did not attack him while he became unarmed in the battle field.
In Rakhi festival and its rich tradition, India leads the way and the immortal story of Poras and Alexander is always remembered on this day.
Do you have any thoughts on *this* subject? Thanks for your time Ron.

In which case kindly stop calling the fuehrer a murderer, the resistance in Europe were only tortured to save the wehrmacht watching its back ditto villages in Russia where burning and massacre were equally the norm as for the Jews well having demonised them to gain power and have the West close its doors on the policy of expatriation it was only sensible to gas these internal enemies before they sabotaged the war effort completely. Shame they did not see it that way at Nuremburg.Inter state wars had practically ceased after Mantinea 360 BC, though rivalries remained and it is disingenous to claim Alexander as an enlightened pursuer of fusion and then excuse his massacres on the grounds that the unenlightened did it that way. Your reasons for these actions are sound and that is why they are atrocities, alternatives existed, alternatives I have no doubt that Philip would have taken in his son's place.

Karl I will call Hitler a murderer indeed for another reason.Hitler deserted 200 000 German soldiers surrounded by the Russians he wouldnt allow them to surrender. Even though they wereout of ammunition and food. Alas the Russians captured them and Almost anhialated to whole army on a long march through the Russian winter.And its fare to say I ever heard anyone offer such an excuse for the holocaust. But ill not drag the thread down by gettiing into that.Kenny

It is important to learn to recognize those for whom Alexander is a religion. The religion can be either pro-Alexander or anti-Alexander. It is worthless to argue about religion. Ron, you should find someone who shares your religion and talk to them.Let's try to keep this forum for those who want to learn and gain a deeper insight about Alexander's actual history.