How is Alexander the great viewed in the West?

[christos200]

When exactly did he do that? Was it before or after he set fire to the Capital and went on a rampage through Bactria?

And half his army was not Persian. That's ********. It was composed out of Greeks and Macedonians(the distinction here being purely in terms of military).

You need to read more about alex. Also if what you say is true why the middle east remained strongly hellenized even after the romans came until the arab invasions?

 

[LightSpectra]

Attributing all of eastern hellenism to Alexander is pretty amusing.

 

[christos200]

Attributing all of eastern hellenism to Alexander is pretty amusing.

I like to be amusing.

 

[Dachs]

And half his army was not Persian. That's ********. It was composed out of Greeks and Macedonians(the distinction here being purely in terms of military).

No, he notably spent a lot of political capital training Iranians as phalangitai after he got back from the East. These formations were still clearly in use during the wars of the Diadochoi (why wouldn't they be? excellent source of manpower); Peukestas is explicitly stated to have used them, as is Antigonos I.

In reality one of the reasons some of his generals didnt liked him was because he gave the persians equal rights with the greeks, while most greeks were racist against the persians. Also his cultural program was more importand than his wars.

ah yes, "w. w. tarn"

we have dismissed that claim

Attributing all of eastern hellenism to Alexander is pretty amusing.

He was a necessary precondition for either all of it or almost all of it, depending on how much stock you put in the theory that the Achaemenids had settled Ionian mercenaries in Baktria back in the mid-fifth century.

 

[HannibalBarka]

To be honest, I lost interest in Greek history when we moved past the Peloponnesian War in my high-school history classes. As for Alex, I've never understood what was so great about him.

Well who would you consider as being great in ancient time than than ? and afterwards? how would you define "greatness"?

 

[sydhe]

To be honest, I lost interest in Greek history when we moved past the Peloponnesian War in my high-school history classes. As for Alex, I've never understood what was so great about him.

He won a lot of battles convincingly, killed a lot of people and conquered a lot of square miles. That impresses people.

I'm more mystified why Theodosius the Great got his epithet.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

He was the son of quite possibly one of the coolest people ever.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Theodosius I is also an Orthodox saint.

 

[christos200]

He won a lot of battles convincingly, killed a lot of people and conquered a lot of square miles. That impresses people.

Also he united most of greece in one state. But the greeks dont like to have a strong gonverment. Like in the war of indepedence, where 2 civil wars happend because the aristocrats created their own senates ( pelloponician, easter and western) and didnt liked a strong gonverment, the ancient greeks didnt wanteda strong greek empire but a confederation of small city states.

 

[strijder20]

Well, I know who Alexander was, and what he did. But I had to prepare something about him in my first year in secondary school.
He conquered ' all of the civilized world ' : that is: Persia, Egypt, Hellas and western India.
His campaign was quite impressive, as he travelled ten thousands of miles in the thirteen years he was king.
His short reign caused Hellenizing of the east, and many empires after the collapse of his empires were 'descendants' of his empire. There was one in India, with one of the Alexandrias as it's capital, and the Ptolemaean dynasty started with one of his generals, Ptolemaeus.
He did have a quite large influence on civilization, regardless of what people say here. An united Persia might have beaten Rome. And if he wouldn't have defeated Persia, Persia might have conquered Greece, which was the base of Roman culture (and the Roman empire was quite influential).
Oh, and I'm named after him.

 

[Phrossack]

Well, I know who Alexander was, and what he did. But I had to prepare something about him in my first year in secondary school.
He conquered ' all of the civilized world ' : that is: Persia, Egypt, Hellas and western India.
His campaign was quite impressive, as he travelled ten thousands of miles in the thirteen years he was king.
His short reign caused Hellenizing of the east, and many empires after the collapse of his empires were 'descendants' of his empire. There was one in India, with one of the Alexandrias as it's capital, and the Ptolemaean dynasty started with one of his generals, Ptolemaeus.
He did have a quite large influence on civilization, regardless of what people say here. An united Persia might have beaten Rome. And if he wouldn't have defeated Persia, Persia might have conquered Greece, which was the base of Roman culture (and the Roman empire was quite influential).
Oh, and I'm named after him.

He most certainly didn't conquer the civilized world; the Pelopennese, Italy, Chorasmia, most of India, and China all lay outside his grasp. He gave up on India, in fact.

As for his military campaigns, he would often take rather long breaks during his war with the Persian Empire to do things like massacre Phoenecians and visit some mystic in Siwa. Alexander recklessly refused to build a fleet to defeat the Persian navy, instead boasting that he would defeat it by land, and had the Persians' Ionian admiral's (can't remember his name for my life) plan to land an army with shiploads of gold in Greece, gain allies, and take Alex's empire from behind been implemented, he could've been stopped or defeated.

 

[christos200]

He is one of the three greatest generals in the world ( the other two are napoleon and genkis khan).

 

[strijder20]

That's why there were '' around civilized world : he conquered all which was considered civilized by the Greeks.

 

[Pangur Bán]

He most certainly didn't conquer the civilized world; the Pelopennese, Italy, Chorasmia, most of India, and China all lay outside his grasp. He gave up on India, in fact.

Yes, exactly. The whole "he conquered the known world" stuff is total nonsense. In fact, he and his father's generals took over the Persian Empire (a pre-existing state) and spent the rest of the time making punitive raids along its frontier. The Persian Empire was a significant part of the "known world", but it is was not anywhere near even half of it let alone "most".

 

[Lord Baal]

Well, I know who Alexander was, and what he did. But I had to prepare something about him in my first year in secondary school.
He conquered ' all of the civilized world ' : that is: Persia, Egypt, Hellas and western India.
His campaign was quite impressive, as he travelled ten thousands of miles in the thirteen years he was king.
His short reign caused Hellenizing of the east, and many empires after the collapse of his empires were 'descendants' of his empire. There was one in India, with one of the Alexandrias as it's capital, and the Ptolemaean dynasty started with one of his generals, Ptolemaeus.
He did have a quite large influence on civilization, regardless of what people say here. An united Persia might have beaten Rome. And if he wouldn't have defeated Persia, Persia might have conquered Greece, which was the base of Roman culture (and the Roman empire was quite influential).
Oh, and I'm named after him.

A united Persia did defeat Rome. On several occasions.

 

[Masada]

eh, what is civilised?

 

[General Pilates]

eh, what is civilised?

The past tense of Civilize.

 

[Tee Kay]

eh, what is civilised?

Familiar.

 

[sophie]

eh, what is civilised?

Some gibberish British people like to pretend is a word.

 

[Masada]

oh rite, things white people like.