Alexandet the great.

[Ninjagrenen]

Hey.

Why do you guys think Alexander manage to conquer that much?
I have to write an assignment about it. So i were thinking what factores made him win the war?

Propaganda?
Best tactic?
Best army?
Luck?

If any of you could refer to some artikels about the reasons that would be great. :)

[Truth Bearer]

He was a genius his tactics were second to none his bravery was unsurpassed as he led from the front.He was inovative he would listen to others in regards to battle tactics which shows you that he had an open mind ready to listen.He inherited a ready made army from his father the army was battle hardend and thanks to the mines Philip had created a profesional army at that.Antipater and Parmenion were his rocks of Gibraltor as they remained loyal to him throughout and yes he had some luck no doubt.

[Not Biased]

I honestly think this is a bit of a biased source of information to use on the guy...
The man was one of the best tactitions of his time but he had his faults, he was paranoid, actually had very little control of his men outside of battle, and his ego caused him a lot of problems. And despite his efforts he never really managed to win over the citizens of many cities and empires he conquered, such as Persia, who's citizens commonly referred to him as Alexander the Condemned and Alexander the fool.
He was also more then likely assassinated by his own men (or by Persians, though that theory hasn't been properly looked into).
Try looking at some other encyclopedic links. Wikipedia actually does a good job.

[Orphic_Hymn]

What exactly is the "biased source of info" when you yourself actually agree to TB's titling him a great tactician?

The man was one of the best tactitions of his time

As for your reference to Persians, its interesting that while Zoroastrian folklore does present him as you state (Gojaste), later Persian traditions present a totally different image. Nizami for example compares him to the birth of a pearl.

Actually his death is still a mystery.

Please don't refer to wiki the "encyclopedia which anyone can edit" as an accurate "encyclopedic link". Just a glance at it and you'll see exactly what all the propaganda war edits have done to this only by name, neutral and informative source.

[Lakonian]

Charisma i believe was his main feature. Bravery aswell. Apart from that his ability to use what little he had ( men) to overwhelm the Persians three times ( against Darius) was phenomenal.

I think youll find most Greek heros carried these two traits.

[Truth Bearer]

The Persians didn't poison him.They never called him the fool.The devil yes but Alexander a fool no.His men I believe had realized that they would never stop fighting so they figured maybe it was time to do away with him.The key is how and what type of poison did they use??

[Alita]

Hey.

Why do you guys think Alexander manage to conquer that much?
I have to write an assignment about it. So i were thinking what factores made him win the war?

Propaganda?
Best tactic?
Best army?
Luck?

If any of you could refer to some artikels about the reasons that would be great. :)

There's a lot of reasons, most of which you will find in the historical sources. But ultimately, I think the main reason is God made him great. :)

[olvios]

Well the Persians lost most fights with the Greeks and made many failed invasions.They were also invaded from Sparta by Agesilaus so Alexanders great feature aside from the many ones he had must have been that he managed to act for the interests of Greece without allowing local interests and rivalries reduce his effort to that of Agesilaus, rushing back to defend Sparta from other Greeks..........something like that.

He was superior to everything from any other.......

[Not Biased]

Alright:

His death by poison was if not proved then highly likely, there was a research project into it and based on the symptoms that were written about and the poisons that were available at that time the researchers became confident he was poisoned by his men.

And the Persians did call him "Alexander the Fool/Devil/Condemned/Accursed". I studied Persian history and know a lot about how they treated him. You have to understand that the burning of Persepolis was considered and unforgivable attack. Though later on they became more lenient because the Macedonian style of leadership was close the the original Persian one that was in place. And the Persian Poisoning was at a time considered a likely explanation since several Persians of the time took credit for it. Though I agree it's likely not true.

And Wikipedia is actually not as bad a source as people claim. We did a study where several of us were assigned to become members and change different topics of different value and importance in any way possible and we never managed to change a thing. In the last while the site has become very strict and every change made is monitored and even the slightest adjustments are debated before being accepted or declined. I agree that there are encyclopedias FAR better then wikipedia, but it's one of the best on-hand ones out there.

[olvios]

The burning of Persepolis was the least we could do after what the Persian empire did to us.

[akritas]

Not Biased you have some point as about the Persepolis but...what the Persian history said for the Alexander chivalry towards the Persian Queen Mother and towards the Sogdian princess, Roxanee, whom he did not rape but married. Did that made a great impression on the Asian(and Persian) aristocracy ?

In 324 at Susa he arranged the weddings of more than eighty Persian, Median and Bactrian aristocrats to the leading Macedonians.

A daughter of Darius and a daughter of his predecessor, Artaxerxes Ochus, were taken in marriage by Alexander. The weddings were conducted in the Persian manner, in which the bridegroom kissed the bride.Is this a respect to the Persian manners ?

Also at Susa Alexander converted into official marriages the liaisons which some 10,000 Macedonian soldiers had formed with Asian women; and he gave them wedding presents. It was known that many Macedonians owed money to Asian traders, who had little hope of recovering it. Alexander paid the money in toto without requiring the soldiers in debt to reveal their identity.

In my opinion all these ways Alexander was treating his Macedonians and his Asians (Persians,Sogdians Medians, Bactrians e.t.c) as equals in status and in obligation.

[Not Biased]

The burning of Persepolis was the least we could do after what the Persian empire did to us.

Okay... That enough should be enough to tell you that you have an extremely biased point of view towards this topic.

And Akrtias, you're right about the things he did, Alexander tried very hard to appease everyone in his empire and to integrate cultures, but my point is that for a long time it didn't stick.

[olvios]

"extremely biased"

Actually i am not.But i see people defending an empire attacking city states and a nation composed of 500,000(mainland ancient greece) people vs 50 million of the Persian empire according to hanson.

Be serious.

[Orphic_Hymn]

Okay... That enough should be enough to tell you that you have an extremely biased point of view towards this topic.



Do you consicder Diodoros Sicelus also a biased source? cause that is his view also, since he too considers it an act of revenge. (17.72)

[olvios]

Alexanders self purpose was to crush the Persian empire that attacked and tried to conquer the Greeks.He did it.

[Not Biased]

I'm not saying that the " Burning Persepolis was an act of revenge" thing is biased. But you said "The burning of Persepolis was the least we could do after what the Persian empire did to us." which makes it sound like you have a serious grudge against the Persians...


And Alexander actually had great respect for the Persian Kings, which is why he declared himself a Achaemenid king once he took over.

P.S. 50 million Persians!? Holy shit! Do you actually believe that number?

Anyway I don't think this is gonna be a good place to learn what I needed to know about the Greco-Persian wars since a lot people seem hate Persia...

Thanks anyway.

[olvios]

The number of residents of the Persian empire-not actual Persians.Check out Hanson.ISBN-960-536-194-9.The wars of the Ancient Greeks.

[akritas]

Anyway I don't think this is gonna be a good place to learn what I needed to know about the Greco-Persian wars since a lot people seem hate Persia...
.
No body here hate anything and anyone!!

[olvios]

......Hate Persia??? You should see from my previous posts on this forum on Persia that its quite the opposite.

But i see people defending an empire attacking city states and a nation composed of 500,000(mainland ancient Greece) people vs 50 million of the Persian empire.

[olvios]

The Persian empire had 20-50 times the number of the Greeks and even more wealth land troops and resources.

Greeks-500,000-1,000,000
Persian Empire-20,000,000-50,000,000

[pankration]

If we're going to use proper historical sources you can look at Fox, Hammond, Renault, Arrian et.al and you will see a common consensus on Persepolis. It was not set afire by Alexander or on his order; it appears to have been burned by court courtesans who in an orgiastic stupor lit fires in a banquet hall. Alexander is definitely to blame, after all, everything comes from the top. He regretted it after and said so. Politically it was a bad move (although it showed he could be merciless, not an undesirable trait in a conqueror) and intellectually even worse. He sanctioned the near destruction of the oldest monotheistic faith in the world and he was smart enough to know that he had crossed a line.