gotta have been the toughest Mother *ucker ever?

[Paralus]

No Efstathios, you have no need to remind me of things such as the Persian propensity for "inbreeding" Nor the Macedonian for that matter or the Ptolemys nor the Spartan Kings amongst a host of others. There was in fact little strange about this practice in the Near East GÇô or "classical" Macedonia.Nor about the Persian practices of mutilation or, for that matter, of placing traitors upon a spike. We might though stop and question the pulling of the Persian Governor around the city of Gaza at the close of the siege don't you think? Here's a bloke "doing his duty" by his King and buying time (post Issus) by resisting investment and a non GÇô "animalish" Alexander drags him 'round the town whilst still kicking. Civilised as it is Homeric I suppose.Nor need you remind me of the murderous rampage after the fall of Tyre. A matter of the exigencies of war perhaps? Crucifixion is a civilised thing.We might wonder about the fifteen to eighteen thousand Greeks at the Granicus who "asked for quarter" and received a massed charge as a reply resulting in a massive slaughter and the infliction of more casualties amongst the Macedonians than the actual battle had occasioned (according to Plutarch).We might ponder the traditional Persian mutilation of Bessus. Yes done for political motives but to order it performed says much about the person who would so order and how he sees himself.And how did he see himself? My own view GÇô certainly above all others and at a minimum "King of Lands" and "Great King". Therefore perfectly able to adopt the ways of the "Great King" GÇô "animalish" behaviours and all.I would think the Achaemenid Kings would disagree vehemently with your characterisation of them. The Persian court considered itself the epitome of refinement and culture. You need to remember that much GÇô overwhelmingly in fact GÇô of what we have extant of the written sources of the time with respect to Persia has been written by Greeks. It is presented from their perspective. Hence the feminist overtones, the descriptions of the "Mede" as soft and effeminate. Self evidently incorrect GÇô they ruled a vast empire for two centuries. You don't do that if you fit the Greek description.

[Paralus]

Indeed Amyntoros, indeed.I think though that we only have Curtius (based on Alexander's court propagandist Callisthenes) as a source for this? Can't quite remember. Callisthenes portrayed it as a revenge for the Persian sacking of the temple (can't remember the name) the Branchidae were responsible for.It fits with much of what was to follow though doesn't it? More educated, civilised behaviour?Paralus.

[Paralus]

Indeed Amyntoros, indeed.I think though that we only have Curtius (based on Alexander's court propagandist Callisthenes) as a source for this? Can't quite remember. Callisthenes portrayed it as a revenge for the Persian sacking of the temple (can't remember the name) the Branchidae were responsible for.It fits with much of what was to follow though doesn't it? More educated, civilised behaviour?Paralus.

[amyntoros]

Although the details of the event are only to be found in Curtius, it's mentioned in the contents of Diodorus 17 (How the Branchidae, who of old had been settled by the Persians on the borders of their kingdom, were slain by Alexander as traitors to the Greeks) but the chapter is missing from the book itself. And even though he omitted it from his Life of Alexander, Plutarch does comment on it in the Moralia: Plutarch's Moralia. Volume VII. 557 B. (The Divine Vengeance.)
"Again, not even the greatest admirers of Alexander, among whom I count myself, approve his wiping out the city of Branchidae and his general massacre of young and old because their great-grandfathers had betrayed the temple near Miletus."Now, I know I don't have to convince *you* that Alexander's actions weren't always the most noble. I figured I'd post the above info in anticipation of the old "If it's only in Curtius then it isn't a reliable source" argument. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[amyntoros]

Although the details of the event are only to be found in Curtius, it's mentioned in the contents of Diodorus 17 (How the Branchidae, who of old had been settled by the Persians on the borders of their kingdom, were slain by Alexander as traitors to the Greeks) but the chapter is missing from the book itself. And even though he omitted it from his Life of Alexander, Plutarch does comment on it in the Moralia: Plutarch's Moralia. Volume VII. 557 B. (The Divine Vengeance.)
"Again, not even the greatest admirers of Alexander, among whom I count myself, approve his wiping out the city of Branchidae and his general massacre of young and old because their great-grandfathers had betrayed the temple near Miletus."Now, I know I don't have to convince *you* that Alexander's actions weren't always the most noble. I figured I'd post the above info in anticipation of the old "If it's only in Curtius then it isn't a reliable source" argument. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[Athanasios]

Thanks, Jan.When one lives a life within a whisker of death, I guess one feels that they can cheat death. I wonder how Alexander would view the modern, material world, where people walk around aneasthetised to life...As for 'barbaric' behaviour raised by others: I guess the different acts of brutality (civility) could be gauged by the level of rage felt or revenge sought. I agree that there is a danger of judging a civilsation through the familiarity of one's own. Nontheless, what appears ot be lacking in war [in general] is humanity. I mean, was it not Ghandi who said if you could separate the act of murder from a man, than you no longer have a murderer, i.e. no need for revenge and definitely there is the ability of taking hatred out of a person.It could be that the times in which the ancients lived, such savagary was not only customary, but essential for survival. Those you left behind will come and seek you out eventually...Even if it took several generations.

[Athanasios]

Thanks, Jan.When one lives a life within a whisker of death, I guess one feels that they can cheat death. I wonder how Alexander would view the modern, material world, where people walk around aneasthetised to life...As for 'barbaric' behaviour raised by others: I guess the different acts of brutality (civility) could be gauged by the level of rage felt or revenge sought. I agree that there is a danger of judging a civilsation through the familiarity of one's own. Nontheless, what appears ot be lacking in war [in general] is humanity. I mean, was it not Ghandi who said if you could separate the act of murder from a man, than you no longer have a murderer, i.e. no need for revenge and definitely there is the ability of taking hatred out of a person.It could be that the times in which the ancients lived, such savagary was not only customary, but essential for survival. Those you left behind will come and seek you out eventually...Even if it took several generations.

[Efstathios]

I think i already mentioned that the comparison is between Alexander and the rest of the Kings/leaders/great generals throughout history.Not between Alexander and a -perfect example of a righteouss man-. The sources are somewhat unclear about Bessus mutilation and crucification.We know that Alexander had him mutilated (his ears and nose cut) according to the persian custom for punishment.And then he handed him to his brother Oxyathris for execution.If this actions indeed happened as metnioned in some sources,then clearly its one of the most barbaric acts that Alexander could do.He chose to follow the Persian custom for this matter because Bessus had named himself a Persian King,successor of Darius.In this way Alexander wanted to show to the people that he truly stood at the place of a Persian King for them.In my oppinion it was a very bad decision.It's one thing to wear some Persian cloths,and another to practise these kind of barbaric customs. But still,it was an isolated case.Alexander was no Saint.But we make a comparisson between him and other Kings. Alexander was a fighter.A military man.You know how wars were conducted in the ancient world.They were like everyday routine.It is a fact though that he managed to stop the endless wars between the greeks.After that wars were between the diadochi,and not between cities fighting eachother to the end. He achieved this with the harsh way.He wiped out Thebes.Thus stopping all other cities from revolting against him,but from fighting eachother too.Was it right?In the long term it did good.But lets see what really happened in Thebes: When Alexander defeated Thebes he ordered his troops to go inside and burn down everything except the temples and the house of Pindarus.And he ordered his soldiers to capture the citizens to be sold as slaves.That was the initial plan.But while the Macedonians followed his orders,the Locroi who were always enemies with the Thebeans went inside and started killing people around and looting.When Alexander found out what was happening he tried to stop them but it was too late.And what had been done,had been done. The intention of ALexander was not to massacre the citizens but to sell them as slaves and burn the city as an example to the other cities.And that is the truth.The senario that Alexander ordered for all these kilings was created by his enemies in Athens. But you are right.Alexander had his animalish moments too.He let his anger prevail over his vi

[Efstathios]

I think i already mentioned that the comparison is between Alexander and the rest of the Kings/leaders/great generals throughout history.Not between Alexander and a -perfect example of a righteouss man-. The sources are somewhat unclear about Bessus mutilation and crucification.We know that Alexander had him mutilated (his ears and nose cut) according to the persian custom for punishment.And then he handed him to his brother Oxyathris for execution.If this actions indeed happened as metnioned in some sources,then clearly its one of the most barbaric acts that Alexander could do.He chose to follow the Persian custom for this matter because Bessus had named himself a Persian King,successor of Darius.In this way Alexander wanted to show to the people that he truly stood at the place of a Persian King for them.In my oppinion it was a very bad decision.It's one thing to wear some Persian cloths,and another to practise these kind of barbaric customs. But still,it was an isolated case.Alexander was no Saint.But we make a comparisson between him and other Kings. Alexander was a fighter.A military man.You know how wars were conducted in the ancient world.They were like everyday routine.It is a fact though that he managed to stop the endless wars between the greeks.After that wars were between the diadochi,and not between cities fighting eachother to the end. He achieved this with the harsh way.He wiped out Thebes.Thus stopping all other cities from revolting against him,but from fighting eachother too.Was it right?In the long term it did good.But lets see what really happened in Thebes: When Alexander defeated Thebes he ordered his troops to go inside and burn down everything except the temples and the house of Pindarus.And he ordered his soldiers to capture the citizens to be sold as slaves.That was the initial plan.But while the Macedonians followed his orders,the Locroi who were always enemies with the Thebeans went inside and started killing people around and looting.When Alexander found out what was happening he tried to stop them but it was too late.And what had been done,had been done. The intention of ALexander was not to massacre the citizens but to sell them as slaves and burn the city as an example to the other cities.And that is the truth.The senario that Alexander ordered for all these kilings was created by his enemies in Athens. But you are right.Alexander had his animalish moments too.He let his anger prevail over his vi

[Efstathios]

But you are right.Alexander had his animalish moments too.He let his anger prevail over his virtues,and he wiped out Tyrs.But again his orders were not to massacre the entire city,and thats why the largest part of the population were sold as slaves. And again,compaire him to other Kings,like Genkis Khan.It's like day and night.It's one thing to be blinded by your anger in a situation,and another thing to behave with a raw killer instict all the time. Again,Alexander was not a Saint.And to be relevant with the original thread, he was maybe the toughest mother%$$@ ever with the exception that while the others were the dark, he was the light.If there is a scale to measure animal or beast instict on a human being ,amongst the other kings he would have the lower score.Most of the times he was fair, most of the times he was noble.And he created an empire with the less casualties possible.In contrast some romans emperors used to wipe out entire populations.The Khan wiped out millions.If this is not a behaviour of a beast then what is? I am not trying to hide Alexander's flaws here.Only to pinpoint the difference between him and the rest.He was a king ,he ordered executions.He killed people in battle.All Kings did that.All generals and warriors did thta.The matter is how they did it."The Persian court considered itself the epitome of refinement and culture" Please dont make start a huge post about the Persian court.The greeks admired the Persian empire until it came out of the myth and fog,when the persians invaded greece.If they admired it that much then why should they bother fighting against them and not to be part of it's magnificence? Because The Persian court ,and furthermore the Persian empire ,beneath the huge statues and buildings and gold,represented corruption,barbaric customs (with the negative meaning),and the lack of freedom. And dont tell me that Huge statues and great buildings and the harems were more important than poetry,theatre,philosophy,art,e.t.c e.t.c.There is no comparisson.So the achaimenids may have been dissatisfied with this oppinion, but what can we do? One of the worst mistales Alexander ever did was that he let himself be drawn into these hollow luxuries,for the sake of his vision of uniting the nations mainly.

[Efstathios]

But you are right.Alexander had his animalish moments too.He let his anger prevail over his virtues,and he wiped out Tyrs.But again his orders were not to massacre the entire city,and thats why the largest part of the population were sold as slaves. And again,compaire him to other Kings,like Genkis Khan.It's like day and night.It's one thing to be blinded by your anger in a situation,and another thing to behave with a raw killer instict all the time. Again,Alexander was not a Saint.And to be relevant with the original thread, he was maybe the toughest mother%$$@ ever with the exception that while the others were the dark, he was the light.If there is a scale to measure animal or beast instict on a human being ,amongst the other kings he would have the lower score.Most of the times he was fair, most of the times he was noble.And he created an empire with the less casualties possible.In contrast some romans emperors used to wipe out entire populations.The Khan wiped out millions.If this is not a behaviour of a beast then what is? I am not trying to hide Alexander's flaws here.Only to pinpoint the difference between him and the rest.He was a king ,he ordered executions.He killed people in battle.All Kings did that.All generals and warriors did thta.The matter is how they did it."The Persian court considered itself the epitome of refinement and culture" Please dont make start a huge post about the Persian court.The greeks admired the Persian empire until it came out of the myth and fog,when the persians invaded greece.If they admired it that much then why should they bother fighting against them and not to be part of it's magnificence? Because The Persian court ,and furthermore the Persian empire ,beneath the huge statues and buildings and gold,represented corruption,barbaric customs (with the negative meaning),and the lack of freedom. And dont tell me that Huge statues and great buildings and the harems were more important than poetry,theatre,philosophy,art,e.t.c e.t.c.There is no comparisson.So the achaimenids may have been dissatisfied with this oppinion, but what can we do? One of the worst mistales Alexander ever did was that he let himself be drawn into these hollow luxuries,for the sake of his vision of uniting the nations mainly.

[marcus]

Also, Julius Caesar didn't kill Vercingetorix at Alesia. Vercingetorix (who had fomented a rebellion against Rome) was indeed forced to surrender after Alesia, after which he was sent to Rome where he lived for four or five years in captivity until Caesar was finally able to celebrate his triumph. Only them was he put to death, suffering a fate that he had, in the eyes of Rome, earned by rebelling, and which the Romans had been practising for some considerable time. Although countless thousands of Gauls were killed during the war, Vercingetorix was the only one executed in this way - all the other captives were sold as slaves.ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Also, Julius Caesar didn't kill Vercingetorix at Alesia. Vercingetorix (who had fomented a rebellion against Rome) was indeed forced to surrender after Alesia, after which he was sent to Rome where he lived for four or five years in captivity until Caesar was finally able to celebrate his triumph. Only them was he put to death, suffering a fate that he had, in the eyes of Rome, earned by rebelling, and which the Romans had been practising for some considerable time. Although countless thousands of Gauls were killed during the war, Vercingetorix was the only one executed in this way - all the other captives were sold as slaves.ATBMarcus

[kenny]

Marcus hailIm glad Alesia has been mentioned that was a marvelous display of military thinking worth of Alexander himself.There we Has Caesar arriving at the bottom af a hill overlooked bay the gaulic forces of equal numbers I wont try spell the guys name.Then we get reinfotcements arriving behind Caesar of even more numbers. Does Caesar do the proverbial in his pants. No he fortifies all his sides then systematicall crushes these two forces.What an absolute marvel hail Caesar.Kenny

[kenny]

Marcus hailIm glad Alesia has been mentioned that was a marvelous display of military thinking worth of Alexander himself.There we Has Caesar arriving at the bottom af a hill overlooked bay the gaulic forces of equal numbers I wont try spell the guys name.Then we get reinfotcements arriving behind Caesar of even more numbers. Does Caesar do the proverbial in his pants. No he fortifies all his sides then systematicall crushes these two forces.What an absolute marvel hail Caesar.Kenny