Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/20/2015 3:19:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/20/2015 3:26:15 PM EST by primuspilum]
For those not in the know, Darius III, King of Persia, fled the battlefield from Alexander not once, but twice. Ultimately, he was executed by his own generals for cowardice. Those generals, by and large, read the writing on the wall and pledged their loyalty to Alexander.

Notably, Alexander was gracious to the defeated Persians, including Darius' mother, whom he "adopted" as his own mother and commanded that the women of Darius' family be treated as if they were his (Alexander's) blood relatives.

Apparently, everything we think we knew is wrong.

Darius was a patriot for fleeing, twice, not a coward.

I find it interesting that this author condemns the Greek contemporary and later Roman pro Alexander sources as solely propaganda (which, assuredly they were to some degree) but accepts at face value "medieval" Persian poetry which portray a struggle between two "great" warriors, "Dara" (Darius) and "Iskandar" (Alexander).

Roman mosaic from around 100 BC showing Alexander (left) chasing Darius from the battlefield (right)




"Darius was portrayed more favorably by other Greco-Roman writers than by Arrian, but Mr. Briant is not interested in the standard scholarly game of comparing divergent ancient accounts to determine which is “true.”




"The ranks of reshapers, as Mr. Briant makes clear, include the medieval Persian poets and romancers who recounted, in texts little known in the West, the fateful duel between “Dara” and “Iskandar,” Darius and Alexander."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-darius-in-the-shadow-of-alexander-by-pierre-briant-1421446368
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:21:53 PM EST
If I could meet and talk with any leader from history Alexander would be that guy.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:23:00 PM EST
history is written by the winners, no?
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:23:02 PM EST
Didn't Alexander execute the generals who betrayed Darius?

Its my understanding that Alexander had a healthy respect for him.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:24:13 PM EST
This is interesting. Good post.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:26:22 PM EST
Everything I know on this subject comes from Iron Maiden.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:27:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Smitro:
history is written by the winners, no?
View Quote


Until recently, yes.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:30:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PikeSlayer:
Everything I know on this subject comes from Iron Maiden.
View Quote



Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:30:48 PM EST
WSJ article wont open for me without subscribing or logging in. What evidence did they use to suggest Darius III wasn't a coward? Arrian, Plutarch, and many others all basically agree that Darius ran away in battle. Alexander charged Darius' direct position at Issus and Gaugamela, if Darius didn't run either he or Alexander would have been seriously wounded or dead. Which isn't the case.


Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:32:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
WSJ article wont open for me without subscribing or logging in. What evidence did they use to suggest Darius III wasn't a coward? Arrian, Plutarch, and many others all basically agree that Darius ran away in battle. Alexander charged Darius' direct position at Issus and Gaugamela, if Darius didn't run either he or Alexander would have been seriously wounded or dead. Which isn't the case.


View Quote



The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:32:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/20/2015 3:32:38 PM EST by happycynic]
Medieval Persian sources? So roughly 1000 years after the fact then. No possibility for bias there.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:33:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/20/2015 3:33:38 PM EST by Kbear]
Lincoln was a Democrat

MLK freed slaves and gave us free speech

Nazi's were the far right

This passes for education.....
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:33:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JAD762:
Didn't Alexander execute the generals who betrayed Darius?

Its my understanding that Alexander had a healthy respect for him.
View Quote
Yes but mainly because the main assassin declared himself king after killing Darius. Alexander was angry that a king had been killed by a lesser man (foreshadowing?) and that the murderer had the gumption to declare himself king of a land Alexander had conquered already (Persia was pretty much completely in Alexander's hands at that point).
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:33:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
For those not in the know, Darius III, King of Persia, fled the battlefield from Alexander not once, but twice. Ultimately, he was executed by his own generals for cowardice. Those generals, by and large, read the writing on the wall and pledged their loyalty to Alexander.

Notably, Alexander was gracious to the defeated Persians, including Darius' mother, whom he "adopted" as his own mother and commanded that the women of Darius' family be treated as if they were his (Alexander's) blood relatives.

Apparently, everything we think we knew is wrong.

Darius was a patriot for fleeing, twice, not a coward.

I find it interesting that this author condemns the Greek contemporary and later Roman pro Alexander sources as solely propaganda (which, assuredly they were to some degree) but accepts at face value "medieval" Persian poetry which portray a struggle between two "great" warriors, "Dara" (Darius) and "Iskandar" (Alexander).

Roman mosaic from around 100 BC showing Alexander (left) chasing Darius from the battlefield (right)

http://www.historybuffs.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/mosaic-thumbnail.jpg


"Darius was portrayed more favorably by other Greco-Roman writers than by Arrian, but Mr. Briant is not interested in the standard scholarly game of comparing divergent ancient accounts to determine which is "true.”




"The ranks of reshapers, as Mr. Briant makes clear, include the medieval Persian poets and romancers who recounted, in texts little known in the West, the fateful duel between "Dara” and "Iskandar,” Darius and Alexander."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-darius-in-the-shadow-of-alexander-by-pierre-briant-1421446368
View Quote
so essentially, the writer wrote a really boring fiction novel?
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:34:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
WSJ article wont open for me without subscribing or logging in. What evidence did they use to suggest Darius III wasn't a coward? Arrian, Plutarch, and many others all basically agree that Darius ran away in battle. Alexander charged Darius' direct position at Issus and Gaugamela, if Darius didn't run either he or Alexander would have been seriously wounded or dead. Which isn't the case.





The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
Who is the writer they quote? What's the book called?
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:34:13 PM EST
Forgive me for thinking that Hootie and the Blowfish found a time machine!!

I had to read for a minute to figure out that this was a history lesson. LOL
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:36:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Who is the writer they quote? What's the book called?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
WSJ article wont open for me without subscribing or logging in. What evidence did they use to suggest Darius III wasn't a coward? Arrian, Plutarch, and many others all basically agree that Darius ran away in battle. Alexander charged Darius' direct position at Issus and Gaugamela, if Darius didn't run either he or Alexander would have been seriously wounded or dead. Which isn't the case.





The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
Who is the writer they quote? What's the book called?



The link has the book and author in the text.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:40:20 PM EST
Brave King Darius ran away, bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes brave King Darius turned about and gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. Bravest of the brave, King Darius.


Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:41:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Medieval Persian sources? So roughly 1000 years after the fact then. No possibility for bias there.
View Quote



Exactly.


I have no problem treating ancient sources with a grain of salt, but to call contemporary or "recent" to the events sources into question and give a complete pass to stuff a thousand years later is not exactly a uniformly applied standard.

Plus, it's worthy to note, Alexander is a figure of "the West".

Darius is a figure of "the Middle East/Asia".

See the modern day political template at work here?

I do.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:44:08 PM EST
So what are they gonna call him now? "Alexander the Pretty Damn Good"?
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:44:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ceetee:
So what are they gonna call him now? "Alexander the Pretty Damn Good"?
View Quote



Alexander The Privileged.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:45:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



The link has the book and author in the text.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
WSJ article wont open for me without subscribing or logging in. What evidence did they use to suggest Darius III wasn't a coward? Arrian, Plutarch, and many others all basically agree that Darius ran away in battle. Alexander charged Darius' direct position at Issus and Gaugamela, if Darius didn't run either he or Alexander would have been seriously wounded or dead. Which isn't the case.





The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
Who is the writer they quote? What's the book called?



The link has the book and author in the text.
Found this quote in the article that wraps everything up nicely:

"To answer it, Mr. Briant ventures his own explanation of Darius’ flight from battle, seeing this as a planned move designed to preserve the Persian monarchy rather than, as Greco-Roman writers assumed, a panicked desertion of duty."

It comes down to opinion then. Briant believes that even with a 10,000 man bodyguard (Immortals) surrounding himself in battle, it was totally cool for Darius to abandon his army and ride away in all haste, even abandoning his mother, wife and children at his camp at Issus, because he needed to survive to ensure the continuity of his dynasty. Bullshit! No king that runs from a fight and abandons his people to the enemy deserves to be a king.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:45:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



Alexander The Privileged.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By ceetee:
So what are they gonna call him now? "Alexander the Pretty Damn Good"?



Alexander The Privileged.



Maybe Alexander the Scary...
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:46:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



Alexander The Privileged.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By ceetee:
So what are they gonna call him now? "Alexander the Pretty Damn Good"?



Alexander The Privileged.
Alexander the Racist White Colonist
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:51:34 PM EST
Alexander represents the historic triumph of western civilization over that of the east.

Progressive revisionists hate western civilization and will do their damnedest to erase it's greatest achievements and the men who were responsible for them.



Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the "contribution" of The United States, Alexander was a coward, and the only Great American worthy of a national holiday in his name is Martin Luther King.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:54:42 PM EST
LOL...Okay. There is reason why everyone knows Alexanders name, and it isn't because of a shitty movie.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 3:55:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Found this quote in the article that wraps everything up nicely:

"To answer it, Mr. Briant ventures his own explanation of Darius’ flight from battle, seeing this as a planned move designed to preserve the Persian monarchy rather than, as Greco-Roman writers assumed, a panicked desertion of duty."

It comes down to opinion then. Briant believes that even with a 10,000 man bodyguard (Immortals) surrounding himself in battle, it was totally cool for Darius to abandon his army and ride away in all haste, even abandoning his mother, wife and children at his camp at Issus, because he needed to survive to ensure the continuity of his dynasty. Bullshit! No king that runs from a fight and abandons his people to the enemy deserves to be a king.
View Quote


Not just opinion, but a poorly founded opinion. It is similar to typical leftist thought that very selectively applies facts.

It reminds me of the claim our federal system was copied from Native Americans.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:03:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Medieval Persian sources? So roughly 1000 years after the fact then. No possibility for bias there.
View Quote


If 'modern' persians are any example -- they also lie like democrats.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:04:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DonS:


Not just opinion, but a poorly founded opinion. It is similar to typical leftist thought that very selectively applies facts.

It reminds me of the claim our federal system was copied from Native Americans.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Found this quote in the article that wraps everything up nicely:

"To answer it, Mr. Briant ventures his own explanation of Darius’ flight from battle, seeing this as a planned move designed to preserve the Persian monarchy rather than, as Greco-Roman writers assumed, a panicked desertion of duty."

It comes down to opinion then. Briant believes that even with a 10,000 man bodyguard (Immortals) surrounding himself in battle, it was totally cool for Darius to abandon his army and ride away in all haste, even abandoning his mother, wife and children at his camp at Issus, because he needed to survive to ensure the continuity of his dynasty. Bullshit! No king that runs from a fight and abandons his people to the enemy deserves to be a king.


Not just opinion, but a poorly founded opinion. It is similar to typical leftist thought that very selectively applies facts.

It reminds me of the claim our federal system was copied from Native Americans.
Its not the first time I've heard people defend Darius. In all fairness, they kind of have a semi valid point, that it was customary during the classical period for kings and generals to occasionally flee and abandon their army when a battle turned south. But that doesn't excuse it, especially when it happened multiple times to Darius.

Overall, I think Alexander, a true warrior king, and his army so outclassed the Persians that it was equivalent of the US military fighting the Iraqi military in Desert Storm. The Persians really had no chance countering Alexander's highly skilled and organized army.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:06:19 PM EST
Deconstruction of heroes is lesson plan 1 in white guilt.

Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:08:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bngracing:
Deconstruction of heroes is lesson plan 1 in white guilt.

View Quote
Sorry to break this to you, but this has nothing to do with white guilt.


Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:12:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Found this quote in the article that wraps everything up nicely:

"To answer it, Mr. Briant ventures his own explanation of Darius’ flight from battle, seeing this as a planned move designed to preserve the Persian monarchy rather than, as Greco-Roman writers assumed, a panicked desertion of duty."

It comes down to opinion then. Briant believes that even with a 10,000 man bodyguard (Immortals) surrounding himself in battle, it was totally cool for Darius to abandon his army and ride away in all haste, even abandoning his mother, wife and children at his camp at Issus, because he needed to survive to ensure the continuity of his dynasty. Bullshit! No king that runs from a fight and abandons his people to the enemy deserves to be a king.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
WSJ article wont open for me without subscribing or logging in. What evidence did they use to suggest Darius III wasn't a coward? Arrian, Plutarch, and many others all basically agree that Darius ran away in battle. Alexander charged Darius' direct position at Issus and Gaugamela, if Darius didn't run either he or Alexander would have been seriously wounded or dead. Which isn't the case.





The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
Who is the writer they quote? What's the book called?



The link has the book and author in the text.
Found this quote in the article that wraps everything up nicely:

"To answer it, Mr. Briant ventures his own explanation of Darius’ flight from battle, seeing this as a planned move designed to preserve the Persian monarchy rather than, as Greco-Roman writers assumed, a panicked desertion of duty."

It comes down to opinion then. Briant believes that even with a 10,000 man bodyguard (Immortals) surrounding himself in battle, it was totally cool for Darius to abandon his army and ride away in all haste, even abandoning his mother, wife and children at his camp at Issus, because he needed to survive to ensure the continuity of his dynasty. Bullshit! No king that runs from a fight and abandons his people to the enemy deserves to be a king.


Yep, the author puts about as thick a coat of sugar on a cowardly retreat as possible, while avoiding the fact that preserving his dynasty means preserving his own neck.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:16:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



Alexander The Privileged.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By ceetee:
So what are they gonna call him now? "Alexander the Pretty Damn Good"?



Alexander The Privileged.


Get in his Homocage!
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:19:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bngracing:
Deconstruction of heroes is lesson plan 1 in white guilt.

View Quote
Yep. Our founding fathers were nothing but rich, greedy, white, slave-owning war-mongers who forced the Revolutionary War for no other reason than they wouldn't have to pay taxes and could be royalty themselves. There was no moon landing. Snipers are nothing but cowards. Bill Belichick is nothing but a cheater. Vanilla Ice stole his basslines, and on, and on, and on.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:19:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:
If I could meet and talk with any leader from history Alexander would be that guy.
View Quote
Would easily be my choice as well. It seems like he had a lot of mercy and compassion but was relentless when messed with.

I found it amazing to learn that he loved learning about his conquered people's heritage/culture and would try to adopt their manners when around them to be polite.


I had to write a big paper two semesters ago comparing and contrasting Alexander's and Ceasars life. Alexander is a legendary beyond Caesar. Julius visited Alexander's grave too I believe to pay tribute to the once great leader.

It was so long ago and I know stories can be twisted but I just wish I could know what he was like. Isn't he mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an?
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:20:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By macpherson:


Yep, the author puts about as thick a coat of sugar on a cowardly retreat as possible, while avoiding the fact that preserving his dynasty means preserving his own neck.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By macpherson:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:

The article quotes the writer's "opinion" but only really offers the medieval Persian sources as "evidence."
Who is the writer they quote? What's the book called?



The link has the book and author in the text.
Found this quote in the article that wraps everything up nicely:

"To answer it, Mr. Briant ventures his own explanation of Darius’ flight from battle, seeing this as a planned move designed to preserve the Persian monarchy rather than, as Greco-Roman writers assumed, a panicked desertion of duty."

It comes down to opinion then. Briant believes that even with a 10,000 man bodyguard (Immortals) surrounding himself in battle, it was totally cool for Darius to abandon his army and ride away in all haste, even abandoning his mother, wife and children at his camp at Issus, because he needed to survive to ensure the continuity of his dynasty. Bullshit! No king that runs from a fight and abandons his people to the enemy deserves to be a king.


Yep, the author puts about as thick a coat of sugar on a cowardly retreat as possible, while avoiding the fact that preserving his dynasty means preserving his own neck.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:23:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:
If I could meet and talk with any leader from history Alexander would be that guy.
View Quote
He probably would have gotten drunk and ran a train on you with his general staff. The royal court of the Macedonian kingdom acted closer to Viking in their conduct than to civilized people.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:27:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.
View Quote



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:27:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PikeSlayer:
Everything I know on this subject comes from Iron Maiden.
View Quote
I've got to admit, I wouldn't know half of what I do about the subject if Iron Maiden hadn't piqued my interest in high school.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:31:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
He probably would have gotten drunk and ran a train on you with his general staff. The royal court of the Macedonian kingdom acted closer to Viking in their conduct than to civilized people.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:
If I could meet and talk with any leader from history Alexander would be that guy.
He probably would have gotten drunk and ran a train on you with his general staff. The royal court of the Macedonian kingdom acted closer to Viking in their conduct than to civilized people.




Only if you were hot.

Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:31:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Don't get me wrong, the guy was a kick ass warrior and commander. He just wasn't close to the level perfection that many thrust on him. I'd say a good part of his success was due to not only fighting scrubs for an enemy but also for being the son of probably the most able human being alive at the time, Philip II.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:35:55 PM EST
The truth usually lies somewhere in between what both sides claim.

Whatever else he was Darius was a loser in a BIG way.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:36:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FDrifting:
Would easily be my choice as well. It seems like he had a lot of mercy and compassion but was relentless when messed with.

I found it amazing to learn that he loved learning about his conquered people's heritage/culture and would try to adopt their manners when around them to be polite.


I had to write a big paper two semesters ago comparing and contrasting Alexander's and Ceasars life. Alexander is a legendary beyond Caesar. Julius visited Alexander's grave too I believe to pay tribute to the once great leader.

It was so long ago and I know stories can be twisted but I just wish I could know what he was like. Isn't he mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FDrifting:
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:
If I could meet and talk with any leader from history Alexander would be that guy.
Would easily be my choice as well. It seems like he had a lot of mercy and compassion but was relentless when messed with.

I found it amazing to learn that he loved learning about his conquered people's heritage/culture and would try to adopt their manners when around them to be polite.


I had to write a big paper two semesters ago comparing and contrasting Alexander's and Ceasars life. Alexander is a legendary beyond Caesar. Julius visited Alexander's grave too I believe to pay tribute to the once great leader.

It was so long ago and I know stories can be twisted but I just wish I could know what he was like. Isn't he mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an?





He was "heroic" in the great achievement and courage in the face of danger sense.

His perspective and conduct are completely alien to our modern sensibilities. While he was a product of his age, he was also bloodthirsty and, in at least one unforgivable instance, murdered in a fit of drunken rage, a close friend who has saved his life many times. Unforgivable.

Yet, he was a prodigy. Some historic figures are prodigies in music and some with paint and canvass.

With Alexander, it was leadership backed by the sword and sarissa.

He can continue to be admired, because most of his enemies were as bad if not "worse" in their violent excesses as he was.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:38:05 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Don't get me wrong, the guy was a kick ass warrior and commander. He just wasn't close to the level perfection that many thrust on him. I'd say a good part of his success was due to not only fighting scrubs for an enemy but also for being the son of probably the most able human being alive at the time, Philip II.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Don't get me wrong, the guy was a kick ass warrior and commander. He just wasn't close to the level perfection that many thrust on him. I'd say a good part of his success was due to not only fighting scrubs for an enemy but also for being the son of probably the most able human being alive at the time, Philip II.



He falls short, I think, in the "virtue" category.

Everywhere else, he's aces. IMO.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:39:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Is this era of history part of your profession or just very interested in it? I ask because I've seen you do a few Macedon era threads and I always like them
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:42:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:43:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FDrifting:
Is this era of history part of your profession or just very interested in it? I ask because I've seen you do a few Macedon era threads and I always like them
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FDrifting:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Is this era of history part of your profession or just very interested in it? I ask because I've seen you do a few Macedon era threads and I always like them





To understand Rome, you have to understand what came before it.

Honestly, just in sheer terms of one person effecting the present time/at the time he was alive, Alexander is the "Greatest" human Western civilization has ever produced.

I think by the above definition, Genghis Kahn was probably "greater" (though not Western), but don't forget, Alexander died of wounds and typhus (likely) at 32. Kahn was more than twice his age when he died.

With a similar lifespan, Alexander would likely have set a bar none could equal.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:45:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:



He falls short, I think, in the "virtue" category.

Everywhere else, he's aces. IMO.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Don't get me wrong, the guy was a kick ass warrior and commander. He just wasn't close to the level perfection that many thrust on him. I'd say a good part of his success was due to not only fighting scrubs for an enemy but also for being the son of probably the most able human being alive at the time, Philip II.



He falls short, I think, in the "virtue" category.

Everywhere else, he's aces. IMO.
More or less, I agree. Militarily he was really good. Very audacious, he took risk taking to a level that I couldn't even imagine. That guy had HUGE balls.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:48:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BushBoar:

I'd rather talk to either Julius Caesar or Augustus.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:
If I could meet and talk with any leader from history Alexander would be that guy.

I'd rather talk to either Julius Caesar or Augustus.
Caesar was great and everything but greed was too big a motivator in his life.

I would rather meet Augustus. He's the one who helped unite a land that had been in civil unrest for so long with the Pax Romana(sp?)
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:48:49 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:





To understand Rome, you have to understand what came before it.

Honestly, just in sheer terms of one person effecting the present time/at the time he was alive, Alexander is the "Greatest" human Western civilization has ever produced.

I think by the above definition, Genghis Kahn was probably "greater" (though not Western), but don't forget, Alexander died of wounds and typhus (likely) at 32. Kahn was more than twice his age when he died.

With a similar lifespan, Alexander would likely have set a bar none could equal.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By FDrifting:
Originally Posted By primuspilum:
Originally Posted By steinhab:
Big time. But considering his background (Iranian history), its a bit understandable. Likewise, historians that focus on Alexander are always quick to come up with excuses for his drunken excesses and his military and political blunders. I still think it would have been cooler for Alexander to have gone west to fight the Italians. My guess is he would have won the initial battles but would be have died in combat by battle two or three at the latest. Meanwhile, Persia was weaksauce. Only real legitimate enemy Alexander faced in a pitched battle were the Indians.



Don't forget his earlier performance under Philip at Chaeronea. He wasn't the Commander in Chief of the Army, but ably commanded the left wing of Philip's Army.

Not that you're suggesting otherwise, but he was the real deal. Also agree that the Indians were no joke.
Is this era of history part of your profession or just very interested in it? I ask because I've seen you do a few Macedon era threads and I always like them





To understand Rome, you have to understand what came before it.

Honestly, just in sheer terms of one person effecting the present time/at the time he was alive, Alexander is the "Greatest" human Western civilization has ever produced.

I think by the above definition, Genghis Kahn was probably "greater" (though not Western), but don't forget, Alexander died of wounds and typhus (likely) at 32. Kahn was more than twice his age when he died.

With a similar lifespan, Alexander would likely have set a bar none could equal.
But there was no way with his lifestyle, whether that includes the nightly binge drinking or leading from the front in battle, that he was ever going to be an old man. He took way more risks than even his father did and I think Philip only made it to 42 before he got killed for pissing people off. Drinking, wounds, bugs, assassins, Alexander was doomed to a short but intense life.

Link Posted: 1/20/2015 4:49:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PikeSlayer:
Everything I know on this subject comes from Iron Maiden.
View Quote


Am I the only one in this thread that holding a lighter above his head?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top