Page 1 of 1
Sekandar in persian sources isn't Alexander
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:19 am
by Cyrus
Name of Alexander exists in persian texts (eg "Alexander I" who was macedonian genereal of Xerxes), I don't see any reason for changing it to Sekandar.
Sekandar (egyptian "Sekhanre") was son of the Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebo. We know that there was a macdonian king with name of Alexander III in his army but he was Sekandar who conquered the persian empire. Alexander was killed in a battle in india but Greeks killed Sekandar in Babylon.
Re: Sekandar in persian sources isn't Alexander
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:44 am
by Polyxena
Is this some competition for the best joke???Than... thanks to make me laught
Re: Sekandar in persian sources isn't Alexander
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:52 am
by Tre
Of course you realize in the Romances, Alexander is said to be the son of Nectanebo. Note that the Romances are stylized fiction based very loosely on the story of Alexander.
Re: Sekandar in persian sources isn't Alexander
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:57 am
by Nicator
oh, Tre...did u have to be the party pooper! We were just getting used to the concept that Alexander came from Egypt and died in India...darn it! Nick W. will love this guy!)later Nicator
Re: Sekandar in persian sources isn't Alexander
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:28 pm
by ruthaki
First prize for the funniest myths!
Cyrus. Apropos your last post on Egypt.
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 6:22 am
by aen
Just thought I'd repost my message here as threads can disappear very quickly in the forum.You mentioned a revolt.Around 331 there was indeed a revolt - this was shortly before Alexander crossed into the Persian sphere. Its ringleader was a guy called Khabash (if not Egyptian, Ethiopian), and I seem to recall he stormed and took Memphis, ousting its then Persian governor/satrap/whathaveyou. He had about a year's quiet before the Persian fleet sailed up the Nile delta to put their house back in order. This they did, quashing Khabash and co, and staying put for another year or so to keep a close watch on things, before having to depart in a rush to try to intercept Alexander's crossing of the Hellespont. They were late.You make the point that it appears strange that Alexander didn't meet stiffer Persian resistance; if they controlled Egypt why didnt they defend it more rigorously?First of all, they had only just regained nominal control of the place; besides they were not popular with the priestly classes who were themselves the bedrock of Egyptian political thought. Secondly, other Persian held regions had capitulated just as fast further to the north, and now, with the gruesome examples of Tyre and Gaza laid down as a marker for what future resistance could expect, there could be no sense in trying to slug it out with the Macedonians. Sounds to me like the Persian source you cite confused Khabash with Alexander and rolled them both into one.Laters.