Alexander a violater

[cyrusthegreat]

With all respect.
in my openion alexander was a evil man.
i am a persian and because of people like him we lost our uniqe religion to the muslims.
now 2500 years later no one even count on us anymore.
all we have left is our memories

[maciek]

Well Persian culture was great indeed but there was many more circumstances and reasons that You lost Your religion to Muslims, but if I had to choose - Alexander would be last of such list of reasons... He never denied anyone to use his own religion beliefs, even opposite! He rebuilt many sanctuaries and rebuilt many cities. He wasnGÇÖt reason of Your loss, but other conquerors and at the first place Muslims themselves. Even Romans weren't as bad to order someone to believe what they wanted. Such methods were used much later and in most bloody way by European crusaders...All the best
Maciek

[stavros]

hellothere was something mentioned in michael woods video about a religion that was destroyed in some part of Iran. r u referring to this religion? what is this religion called? and if so could it not be preserved somehow? does it exist today in any form? kind regardsstavros

[Nicator]

...hhmmm, if I recall correctly, Darius lost the war. If Darius wasn't such a slack, incompetant, then Persia would have survived in its archaic state perhaps a bit longer. I should think that an army which in the very least outnumbered another by 5 to 1 should have been able to win. Oh, but that's right, Darius (the loser) allowed his emotions to get the better of him and had his best Greek mercenary general killed. The Persians waged war on the Greeks for centuries...they got what they deserved. Unfortunately, Alexander (the winner) died before seeing his labors mature into the great Hellenistic kingdoms which brouhgt Persia out of the dark ages and up to speed with the west. In short, it was Persia's fault for losing, not Alexander's for winning. Let's see, Marathon, the sack and burning of the beautiful Greek acropolis, and Persia's involvement in Greek affairs during the Pelopponisian war, and nearly every other conflict between the Greek Polis'. Persia was notorious for destabilizing the Greeks. Do I need to go on?

[nick]

Hi Cyrusthegreat -In some modern perspectives - I think Peter Green could be seen as one of the foremost advocates of this interpretation - Alexander (Eskender) never wanted to destroy the old Persian monarchy and admistration. He just longed for transferring some of its splendour on to his own person.It is true that Alexander burned Persepolis. If he destroyed the original Avesta - that is still subject to debate. Most scholars agree that the ancient Persian tradition was predominantly oral, and that the first copies of the Avesta were written down around the time of the Muslim conquest of Iran - after the battle of Nehavend - wasn't that 642 AD or something? (Mind you, Nehavend was 1000 years, ten full centuries, after Alexander... !)Alexander's empire is viewed by some people as the last 'continuation' of Achaemenid Persia and in that sense Alexander might be viewed as the last Achaemenid heir. On the other hand, one could argue that Alexander's roots were those of a warrior king of an ambitious peasant kingdom on the fringes of the civilised world. Once he got possession of all those splendours of ancient Persia, did he know how to handle them?But anyway, Nehavend happend ten centuries later. The flourishing empires of the Sassanids (and also the Parthians) indicate that Alexander certainly did not single handedly deliver a mortal blow to the vitality of the old Persian culture nor Zoroastrian religion. History has a long breath.You are always welcome to visit my website gaugamela.com - with sympathy -Nick

[Nicator]

Hello Stavros,The religion mentioned in Wood's video is "Zoroastrianism". It was named after Zoroaster, and was around 1000 years old at the time of the mythical encounter with Alexander. It exists in some form today in Christianity (believe it or not). later Nicator

[nick]

Hi Nicator,Hi Nick, this is Nick. Please be a little gentle.If you have never read Delbruck, I would gladly recommend his work. Though this German scholar of military history wrote his works 100 years ago (his last edition is from 1920 but still in print), his analysis of the battles between Alexander and Darius is one of the best I have ever read. Even if you would disagree strongly with Delbruck's "Warfare in Antiquity", his points of view have to be taken into account.Considering the nature and system of ancient Persia, Delbruck argues that Alexander was outnumbered only at Gaugamela. But even that was only a slight Persian advantage in cavalry. Both at Granicus and Issus it were the Persians who were outnumbered - says Delbruck.Personally, I might like a viewpoint somewhere in between. However, even when you read Arrian and other ancient sources carefully: at Issus the Macedonian phalanx suffered heavy losses and almost collapsed. At Gaugamela the battle hung in the balance... So, there is no need to downplay people who share their views here.Best regards -
Nick

[Nicator]

Perhaps you are right. I will edit the post and soften it a bit. Sometimes I get a little irritated when someone provides a viewpoint as ridiculous as that. As far as Delbruck is concerned, thanks for the recommendation. In the meantime, I'll have to go with the voluminous information to which most other sources and compilations attest, i.e...the Granicus numbers favored Alexander, the Issus numbers favored Darius (greatly), and the Guagamela numbers favored Darius (perhaps less greatly...but still greatly).
The composition of the Issus army was more evenly balanced between cavalry and infantry with a large contingent of Greek mercenaries (which caused most of the damage to the phalanx). Indeed it was because of the large numbers at Issus that Alexander was able to outmaneuver them so effectively. Darius made the mistake...against his advisers advice to move into a tight space and force a confrontation.
The composition of the army fielded by Darius at Guagamela was mostly cavalry with most of the Greek mercenaries either dead or deserted after Issus. As at Issus, it was Darius who fled and in so doing gave the signal for a general retreat. If he had stayed on and fought, even if it was to the bitter end, his forces would likely have stayed at it and forced a different outcome to the battle.
later Nicator

[jorgios]

Alexander in no way brought to end the Persian Civilization. What about the Parthians and the Sassanids? These existed long after Alexander, and they brought defeat after defeat to the Roman Legions sent to conquer Persia. Marc Antony lost a number of legions to the Parthians, and the Sassanid Zoroastrians lead the victorious Persians into Jersualem to seize the "True Cross" from the Byzantines in 600 A.D. As we can see the Persians were high at a seat of power long after Alexander's death.In contrast, it was probably the intense social stratifcations, along with bankruptcy due to wars with the Byzantines that led to the ease of conquest by the Muslim armies.Here is some brief info on Iran after Alexander:he Sassanids established an empire roughly within the frontiers achieved by the Achaemenids, with the capital at Ctesiphon. The Sassanids consciously sought to resuscitate Iranian traditions and to obliterate Greek cultural influence. Their rule was characterized by considerable centralization, ambitious urban planning, agricultural development, and technological improvements. Sassanid rulers adopted the title of shahanshah (king of kings), as sovereigns over numerous petty rulers, known as shahrdars. Historians believe that society was divided into four classes: the priests, warriors, secretaries, and commoners. The royal princes, petty rulers, great landlords, and priests together constituted a privileged stratum, and the social system appears to have been fairly rigid.
A rock relief at Naqshe Rostam, depicting the triumph of
Shapur I over the Roman Emperor Valerian, and Philip the Arabian
Sassanid rule and the system of social stratification were reinforced by Zoroastrianism, which became the state religion. The Zoroastrian priesthood became immensely powerful. The head of the priestly class, the mobadan mobad, along with the military commander, the eran spahbod, and the head of the bureaucracy, were among the great men of the state. Rome, with its capital at Constantinople, had replaced Greece as Iran's principal Western enemy, and hostilities between the two empires were frequent. Shahpur I (240-272 CE), son and successor of Ardeshir, waged successful campaigns against the Romans and in 260 CE even took the emperor Valerian prisoner. Between 260 and 263 CE he had lost his conquest to Odenathus, and ally of Rome. Shapur II (ruled 309-379 CE) regained the lost territories, however, in three successive wars with the Romans.

[jorgios]

In the spring of 633 CE a grandson of Khosro called Yezdegerd ascended the throne, and in that same year the first Arab squadrons made their first raids into Persian territory.Years of warfare exhausted both the Byzantines and the Iranians. The later Sassanids were further weakened by economic decline, heavy taxation, religious unrest, rigid social stratification, the increasing power of the provincial landholders, and a rapid turnover of rulers. These factors facilitated the Arab invasion in the seventh century.It was the beginning of the end. Yezdegerd was a boy, at the mercy of his advisers, incapable of uniting a vast country which was crumbling into a number of small feudal kingdoms. Rome no longer threatened. The threat came from the small disciplined armies of Khalid ibn Walid, once one of Mohammad's chosen companion-in-arms and now, after the Prophet's death, the leader of the Arab army.

[jan]

Hi Nick, I did visit your website today, but did not use guest book yet. I wanted to read more of it before I make any comments. Truly very interesting and it surprised the heck out of me. I like the links section. I would like to know more about Persepolis itself. How much was destroyed by Alexander? Since so little is left standing today, how do we know so much about its contents.I recall reading something about a 111 stairway. Do you know anything about that?Thanks,Jan

[cyrusthegreat]

Dear stavros.
that religion is called zoroastranisim
in persian, zardushti.
there are about 250.000 people left in the world who do believe in this religion.
you can read more about it by clicking on yahoo. and write zoroaster.
thanks for your interests.

[davej]

I really dont think that Darius was all that incompetent. If he was is'nt that taking away from Alexander's achievements. After all it isnt that hard to crack a walnut with a hammer. Darius made some fundamental errors but he was not an idiot. If anybody really wants to know how a Western army could be beaten by an eastern army look into the 363AD Julian Campaign. The Sassanians wore down the ROmans and eventually won. Darius should have done the same Alexander needed to engage and defeat Darius. Darius should have split his army up and moved it around so Alexander would have been chasing his tail in hostile territory. Alas Darius' pride would not allow this his hubris got him or perhaps he had no choice there were rivals to the throne his failure may have been interpreted as weakness. In short love Alexander but respect his rivals.As for blaming Alexander for the death of Persian culture , Please............ thats rich. The Romans killed off more Persians then Alexander for a start. Hellenistic culture was fairly tolerant I beleive, so too the Romans. Islam rose on its own not because of ATG.Just my opinion.Dj

[Nicator]

"I really dont think that Darius was all that incompetent. If he was is'nt that taking away from Alexander's achievements."I'm not saying he was an idiot, only that cyrus needs to quit blaming the sins and evils of the world on someone else, and look to himself to better it. Certainly, Darius was not idiot, he set in place a fantastic army, and a well developed battle plan which should have worked. Tear open holes in Alexander's line with Scythed chariots. Rush into gaps with heavily mailed cavalry to take Alexander in the flanks and rear. Double envelopment on each flank to force Alexander to thin his center to shore up his flanks. Crush his weakened center with his elephants. Mop up the remains with his infantry. As Hammond stated, the trap was well set, all that was needed was for Alexander to walk into it. The problem occured in the execution mostly. Darius must shoulder the blame for that, as he insisted on taking overall command completely. He also made the unforgivable mistake of running from the battle field before the battle was decided. For that reason alone, I can not respect him. For the rest of his blundering...it's like you said it would take away from Alexander's achievement. I mean, let's face it, Alexander was going to win no matter what Darius tried...it was just a matter of superior tactics and training. Darius was not up to the task, but no one else was either. As Dodge says..."Never were dispositions better taken to resist the attacks of the enemy at all points; never on the field were openings more quickly seized; never was threatening disaster more skillfully retrieved...The world will never see more splendid tactics."As far as the Persians trying some other tactics, it's not likely to have worked either. Alexander was just too good. later Nicator

[marcus]

Something that occurred to me yesterday, was that, from Darius' point of view, fleeing the field at Issus, and I suppose at Gaugamela too, might have been an extremely astute move, rather than one of perceived cowardice.At Issus, Alexander's view was that, now that Darius had taken the field, this was to be the last battle. Once Darius was killed or captured, it was all over.From Darius' point of view, therefore, once he saw his left wing folding, and Alexander able to wheel and take his front lines in flank and rear, he knew that he could not recover the advantage, so the battle was, to all intents and purposes, over, whatever happened on the Persian right wing (the cavalry).Therefore, in order to retain some initiative and to give the Persian empire a chance to fight back, the retirement of the king from the field was a sensible option - after all, it allowed him to raise another army and have another bash at defeating Alexander 2 years later.So, coward or very astute general/king? All the bestMarcus