Alexander III the Great: forever in history!

A still from Oliver Stone's epic film based on the book "Alexander the Great" by Oxford University historian Robin Fox. The film tells about eight years of the most active battles of Alexander and his relationship with his childhood friend and comrade-in-arms Hephaestion (2004)

“... [Alexander] did not follow the advice of Aristotle and did not command the Hellenes as a commander, but the barbarians as a despot; he did not take care of some as friends and household members, and did not use others as animals or plants, and therefore did not fill the years of his reign with exiles leading to wars and uprisings of intruders; on the contrary, considering himself sent from God and a universal mediator and conciliator, he forced those whom he could not unite with a word weapons, led by all means to one goal and, as if in a friendly goblet, mixed lifestyles and customs, marriages and customs, commanding everyone to consider the entire inhabited land as their fatherland, teaching them to see a stronghold and a stronghold in a military camp, to honor daredevils for relatives and cowards for strangers , to distinguish Hellenic and barbarian not by chlamys and shield, not by saber and caftan, but to consider valiant Hellenic, bad barbarian, to have common clothes and meals, marriages and customs, mixed into one thanks to consanguinity and the younger generation.
Plutarch

Great rulers. So, finally, we got to the personality of Alexander the Great, Alexander III in a row, who received the nickname "The Great". So far, we have mainly considered those lords who, for whatever reason, did not receive it. There are also those who were also called the "Great", but something in the human memory of their greatness, little is left. But the glory of Alexander and the memory of his greatness survived the centuries. Why? Obviously there were reasons for this...

A frame from the movie "Alexander the Great", which was filmed in 1956. Some kind of Alexander here is too old ...

Let's start by recalling once again a number of simple rules that guided the rulers of ancient Greece, wanting to sit on their thrones longer. To fight or prepare for war, to give work to the people, that is, to build public buildings, to organize holidays and amuse the people, to keep spies and - a very important condition - to prevent worthy advancement, "even to execute." And here, probably, almost everyone will remember that Alexander did not use this last rule, although it is known that he executed people from his inner circle. That is, the opinion of the people - and it is the main appraiser of the acts of the rulers, was condescending to him in these cases. That is, it is obvious that the persons executed by him suffered for the cause, and did not fall victim, well, let's say, to his manic suspicion or fear of losing power.

But in the movie by Oliver Stone, he even looks like his bust from the Louvre

Obviously, the roots of Alexander's greatness lie in his ... childhood. Because we all come from there, and it is there that our future is laid. Looking into it, we will see the "son of a successful father", a polygamist and a drunkard, but an outstanding commander and organizer. Alexander's mother Olympias was a woman of strong character, and since Philip was often absent while on campaigns, the child was brought up with her. She did not have warm feelings for her husband, so he heard a lot of “good” things about his father from her. The chroniclers of antiquity note that already as a child, Alexander was very quick-tempered, but at the same time he showed such qualities as sensitivity, curiosity and diligence. As for his father, King Philip II, he was married a total of seven times, and lived with all the wives at the same time, which in the eyes of the Greeks was worthy only of a barbarian. From all these wives he had children - the sisters of Alexander and the half-brother Arrhidaeus, who was a year older than him, but was distinguished by dementia, as a result of which Alexander was the only possible heir to Philip. The education given to him was traditional for a Greek youth of a noble family.

Roman copy from a work by Lysippus (Louvre Museum). One of the most reliable depictions of Alexander

With the father of the prince, it came to an open quarrel, so that when he was killed, an opinion was expressed about his involvement in this matter, but no evidence of this was presented. But the death of her husband and father Olympias and Alexander used very skillfully, namely, having exterminated all their relatives, possible contenders for the throne. So by the will of fate and ... the army, which already knew Alexander as a brave and decisive commander, he was proclaimed king. And leaving behind all his ambiguous past from the point of view of psychology, he rushed into the future to the greatness of his own and the greatness of the power he created!

Tetradrachm of Alexander the Great with his profile. Cleveland Museum of Art

And on this path, he really did truly great things: having ascended the throne at the age of 20, he suppressed the uprising of the Thracians and again subjugated Greece. In 334 BC. e. a campaign began in Asia Minor, where he showed his talent as a commander in the battles of Granik, Issus and Gaugamela. Having won a decisive victory over the Persian state, he proclaimed himself the "King of Asia" and conquered Central Asia in just three years, then invaded India, only his tired army refused to go further.

Alexander enters Babylon. Charles Lebrun, ca. 1664. Louvre

Returning in 324 BC. e. to Babylon, which he made his capital, Alexander began to prepare a campaign in Arabia, but died at the age of 32. That is, he had a chance to actively rule for only 12 years!

Alexander of Macedon in the helmet of Hercules (lion's head) on the sarcophagus of Sidon

But Alexander had few conquests. He also built cities, and how many - no one knows for sure: they also write about 34, 16 or 13 Alexandria. In any case, Alexandria of Egypt and Marakanda Extreme, today's Samarkand, are well known to everyone.

Marriage of Alexander and Stateira as Ares and Aphrodite. Pompeian fresco, copy after a painting by Aetion. About 60 AD. e., Antiquarium, Pompeii

And he was far-sighted, this young man. To strengthen his power, he forced 10 thousand Macedonians to marry Asian women, and he himself married Stateira, the eldest daughter of Darius III, and Parysatis, daughter of Artaxerxes III. And Seleucus, for example, did marry the daughter of Spitamen Apama. At the same time, the wedding was played in an oriental manner, and all the newlyweds received rich gifts from the king.

Alexander attracted the Persian nobility, which caused discontent among his close-minded fellow Macedonians. What to do, the vast majority of people lack the breadth of thinking. They cling tightly to dilapidated dogmas, everything new frightens and repels them. Frame from the film "Alexander the Great" (2004)

Yes, there were executions of companions. So, the commander of the cavalry of the Getairs, Philot, was executed because he knew about the conspiracy of those close to the king, but did not inform. The father of the executed, Parmenion, was killed without trial, since no one had canceled the blood feud at that time. Clitus the Black king killed with a spear in the heat of a drunken quarrel, although he was the brother of his nurse Lanika and saved his life in the battle of Granik. But Clit did not think then and said: that Alexander is now surrounded "barbarians and slaves who worship his Persian belt and white tunic”, and he, being at the zenith of his glory, naturally, could not stand such arbitrariness. He burned the Achaemenid palace in Persepolis, incited by the heteroa Thais (in the novel by Ivan Efremov "Thais of Athens" this act is generally justified).

Alexander cuts the Gordian knot. Jean-Simon Berthelemy, late XNUMXth - early XNUMXth century

Obviously, over the years, Alexander began to abuse wine, and in this sea the heroes drown, and was filled with an excessive sense of his own importance, and all because he had absolute power, and absolute power corrupts a person absolutely!

Alexander defeats the Indian king Por. Miniature from the manuscript of the Romance of Alexander, 1420s. British Library

But there is no doubt that he created the first state in the world that united peoples so different in their culture, and spread Greek culture to all known Asia. And even the fact that after his death it immediately fell apart, and its generals, the Diadochi, then fought with each other until 281 BC. e., does not detract from the consequences of Alexander's conquests.

Duel with Por in the film by Oliver Stone. In reality, it did not seem to exist, but after so many years, can we really assert anything with absolute accuracy?

And it turns out that people can recognize both the weaknesses and even the crimes of the ruler, if the latter do not cross a certain line, but what he did really affects many countries and peoples.

Gold coin with the profile of Alexander. Archaeological Museum in Pella

And it is also not at all surprising that the image of Alexander has taken a completely unique place in world culture. It has been proven that no one, except him, has ever become the object of such close attention from people of science and art, and he was not an example for anyone to follow. Even today, the leaders of a number of Afghan tribes trace their genealogy to him (which is not at all surprising, by the way!), And Greece and North Macedonia are still arguing which of them has more rights to be considered Alexander's heir.

L. Carracci. Alexander and Thais set fire to Persepolis, c. 1592 Palazzo Francia, Bologna

Novels were written about him, he was depicted in marble and on canvas, radio plays and films were staged about him. Perhaps no other person in stories mankind has not left such a bright, comprehensive and memorable trace. So he fully deserved the right to be called the Great, and much more than many others, who then also became ... "great".

Comments

[svp67]

Perhaps no other person in the history of mankind has left such a bright, comprehensive and memorable mark.

Even in Soviet cinema...

[Shurik70]

the glory of Alexander and the memory of his greatness survived the centuries. Why?

Well, yes. In a quarter of a century it conquered more than Rome in six centuries of development.
And after his death, though the assembled collapsed, but not in small fragments, but in large states.
No one has been able to do this. That's why they remember.
And his "enlightenment" activities - there were many enlightened rulers. But only historians know about the majority. Everyone knows Alexander the Great now (almost).

[paul3390]

The most offensive thing is probably his dad .. After all, it was he who created the Macedonian army, he fully prepared the campaign in Persia both politically and financially, he went to this all his life. But - did not come. And it’s not at all a fact that Pope Philip would have turned out to be a less brilliant and brilliant commander. And the fact that he would have disposed of the conquered much better is beyond doubt. His power - most likely would not have collapsed immediately after the death of the ruler. Painfully gone and was cunning. And the world would be completely different .. Alas - everything turned out as it happened ..

[3x3zsave]

Probably the most annoying thing for Artemis, while she was obstetrical during the birth of Alexander, some pyromaniac burned down the temple ...

[Shurik70]

Quote: paul3390

The most annoying thing is probably his dad

Normal teachers and parents are proud of the achievements of their students, and if they envy, then with white, not black envy.
As for "could" - hardly. Philip was a talented ruler who raised the economy and military power of the country. Alexander was a genius commander. The same battle at the Granicus. Alexander saw that if you force a river with a phalanx and attack the enemy infantry in the forehead, it will run, and if you occupy the enemy’s cavalry with your cavalry, then it will not be able to harm the phalanx. And then run after the infantry. And he won with scanty losses, almost completely destroying the enemy, who died, who was captured. And the military advisers, appointed by the father, advised before the battle to take up defense on a successful line - the river bank, and stand there.

[Engineer]

The same battle at the Granicus. Alexander saw that if you force a river with a phalanx and attack the enemy infantry in the forehead, it will run, and if you occupy the enemy’s cavalry with your cavalry, then it will not be able to harm the phalanx. And then run after the infantry. And he won with scanty losses, almost completely destroying the enemy, who died, who was captured.

Some weird interpretation.
At the Battle of the Granic, Alexander did everything to destroy his army.
Crossing in full view of the enemy, in one place, without false demonstrations, without detours.
Against any normal opponent, this would have ended in a bloodbath. But the Persians did not bring up the infantry, did not organize a coordinated attack from three sides on the crossing vanguard, but only threw darts at it, and instead of controlling the battle, their commanders got into single combat with the fighters of the royal silt.

Another thing is that Alexander studied and acted exemplarily under Gaugamela.

PS The battle of the Hydaspes performed by Alexander is a crossing with a fight of a healthy person. Granik - smoker's crossing

[paul3390]

acted exemplarily under Gaugamela.

Under Gaugamela, Alexander almost lost .. If Darius had at least a little courage and brains, everything could have ended differently. After all, the wing of Parmenion was close to defeat after the coverage, and the Persians still had enough reserves to repel the blow of Alexander's cavalry. But Darius corny drapanul at the first danger, and behind him - and the army.

[Engineer]

And there is no contradiction here.
He acted exemplary, but the enemy was strong and the Persians had a chance.
For the first time, the Macedonians met not only more numerous cavalry, but also more heavily armed. In a head-on collision, the Persians sometimes achieved superiority, in the final phase they even built a double front. That is, the commanders knew what they were doing. There were also failures - after breaking through the line, part of the Persians rushed to rob the camp.
Darius messed up, of course.

[Shurik70]

Quote: Engineer

At the Battle of the Granic, Alexander did everything to destroy his army.
Crossing in full view of the enemy, in one place, without false demonstrations, without detours.
Against any normal opponent, this would have ended in a bloodbath. But the Persians did not bring up the infantry, did not organize a coordinated attack from three sides on the crossing vanguard, but only threw darts at it, and instead of controlling the battle, their commanders got into single combat with the fighters of the royal silt.

I do not agree.
Before crossing the phalanx, he ferried the cavalry to a safe place. And he occupied the entire enemy army with the attack of this cavalry. And only after that he crossed the phalanx. The phalanx practically hit the rear of the infantry defending against the cavalry.
The result - for every dead Macedonian, a hundred corpses of enemies and two hundred prisoners.
How can one say "almost killed the army" with such a result?
Genius planning. Perfect performance.

And the battle of Gaugamela is just standard for Alexander.
Alexander let the army rest before the battle, he knew in advance about the types of enemy troops, each soldier knew how to act against whom. The Persians showed all the qualities of the decline of the old empire - there are experienced commanders, but most are majors, many troops, but little order and a mediocre king. The result was an army tired before the battle, low morale, the successes of individual commanders were not developed, and they fled ineptly, succumbing to panic, when there was every chance of winning.

[Engineer]

Before crossing the phalanx, he crossed the cavalry, in a safe place

No. cavalry he ferried in the very dangerous position in front of the enemy.
Arrian:

The Persians rushed from above to the advanced detachments of Amyntas and Socrates, who approached the shore: some threw javelins and spears into the river from coastal heights, while others, who stood below, ran into the very water. 2 The horsemen [68] were confused: some tried to get ashore, others hindered them; the Persians threw many darts; The Macedonians fought with spears. The Macedonians were much smaller and in the first battle they had a bad time, because they repelled the enemy, standing not on solid ground, but in the river and below, while the Persians were on the coastal heights.

And he occupied the entire enemy army with an attack of this cavalry

No. He took only the cavalry of the Persians.
Arrian

The battle was equestrian

The Persian infantry did not move and did not participate in the first phase of the battle

The pursuit did not last long, because Alexander turned against the foreign mercenaries. A mass of them remained - not on sound reflection, but rather from horror at the unexpected - to stand in the same place where they were first placed..

The phalanx practically hit the rear of the infantry defending against the cavalry

Alas, not again. Arrian appears rather the opposite.
Infantry in the forehead, cavalry covers

Alexander led the infantry against them, and ordered the horsemen to attack them from all sides.

knew in advance about the types of enemy troops, each warrior knew how to act against whom

And again no. Olbricht points out that the Macedonians first encountered cataphracts, which caused Alexander's troops a lot of trouble.

[Shurik70]

And yet.
Alexander has 120 dead.
The enemy has 10 thousand killed, 20 thousand captured.
These numbers overturn your logic.

[Engineer]

Do you have access to Persian archives confirming such losses?)

Bursting into the middle, he killed everyone in a short time; no one managed to escape, except for those who hid among the corpses; were taken prisoner 2000.

Cut the sturgeon at times. Or even an order

[Shurik70]

It was only 2000 captured Greek mercenaries that he sent to Macedonia as slaves. And this is a completely reliable historical fact that has fallen into many annals.
But how many Persians were there?
The historian Diodorus indicates 20 prisoners. But it is believed that he could exaggerate.
The most reliable is the historian Arrian, who lived a century and a half after the Macedonian. He indicates 20 thousand total infantry before the battle, and 10 thousand dead, all the rest were captured.

[Engineer]

Diodorus gives the largest figures of all sources.
Arrian writes that a thousand mounted Persians died,

About a thousand Persian horsemen died.

2000 foot soldiers were taken prisoner.
That's it.
20 thousand Greek mercenaries is a perfect fantasy. There is simply nowhere to take them from - just compare with the size of Xenophon's detachment.
The course of the battle at Arrian clearly shows:
There were far fewer Persians. Although Arrian himself calls a somewhat larger figure, this does not stand up to criticism, because the Persians are clearly weaker even in the most advantageous position.
The mercenary infantry provided no assistance to the Persian cavalry while it was fighting.
Alexander frivolously got into the bag and got off cheaply only because the Persian cavalry did not attack in a coordinated manner, did not strive for hand-to-hand combat and was not adapted for it, with the exception of the leaders who stupidly got into hand-to-hand combat and died.

[Shurik70]

Quote: Engineer

20 thousand Greek mercenaries is a perfect fantasy.

20 thousand TOTAL INFANTRY, of which 10 thousand died.
How many Greeks there were, and how many Persians - I can't say. But I think the share of the Persians is still significant. This is the basics of politics - do not create large mercenary units in the places where they were hired - this increases the likelihood of a riot.
2 thousand Greeks were sent into slavery (but it was not good to be hired by someone who popped into Macedonia). Perhaps their losses were generally small, as many were hired, so many were captured.

[Engineer]

No other infantry other than the Greeks is mentioned in the sources.
They might have been, or they might not have been. Arrian writes nothing about other infantry.

This is the basics of politics - do not create large mercenary units in the places where they were hired - this increases the likelihood of a riot.

Well, none of the modern historians believes that there were many of them.

In general, trusting ancient historians in terms of the number of Persian troops is nonsense. Arrian and Co. counted 1 million + Persians under Gaugamela.

Perhaps their losses were generally small, as many were hired, so many were captured.

It is quite possible, therefore, there is no need to talk about 10 thousand killed and 20 thousand prisoners.

[Shurik70]

I feel like I can't convince you.
I propose to end this dispute, since we operate not with exact figures, but with assumptions.
But it was interesting.

[Engineer]

Certainly speculation.
But the course of the battle is still described. And Alexander is not a fountain there. It is enough to compare with the Hydaspes

But it was interesting.

Mutually

[Alexander Salenko]

About 10 thousand killed in the era of edged weapons - it will be a bit much. The fact of victory is obvious, but I do not agree with the numbers. It's like during the Marathon of the Greeks 10 thousand, where did they come from in such a quantity? But if the number of thousands and hundreds is tied to the administrative structure of Attica, then everything becomes clear. And there, if memory serves, the Persians allegedly lost 6 thousand, which is why they tried to capture Athens from the sea after the "defeat".

[Illanatol]

History is written by the winners. Always "rounding the numbers" in a direction that suits you.
"Why feel sorry for them, infidels"

[paul3390]

Well - Philip also seemed to show himself decently, the same battle of Chaeronea is worth something. But - he was a much more dodgy type, and he preferred to solve problems by no means head-on, like a son. Let's say - instead of besieging the almost impregnable Tire for half a year, he would most likely just agree, or - corny bought the top of the city. And so - everywhere. Yes - not so bright and beautiful, but - much more efficient and less time-consuming and resource-consuming ..

In general, Alexander was just lucky that his main opponent turned out to be the extremely mediocre Darius III. If the same Cyrus had opposed him, it could have turned out interesting .. In the same India or Scythia, the victories were given to Macedonia so hard that they had to refuse to continue expansion in those directions ..

[Flooding]

Quote: Shurik70

In a quarter of a century, conquered more than Rome in six centuries of development

Rome is not just a conquering state.
This is an empire-builder, an empire-stater.

It's not enough to win.
It is important to keep what you have won.

[Alexander Salenko]

Launched a whole cultural process called Hellenism.

[Illanatol]

Rome was also fairly "Hellenized". Greek is the language of all educated Romans. Roman mythology and the pantheon of gods are largely under Greek influence.
But Rome was not conquered by Alexander. Nevertheless, Alexander's contribution to the Hellenization process should not be overestimated, he only accelerated this process.

[Alexander Salenko]

So Hellenism is also a feedback with the culture of the East, it is not a purely Greek cultural influence on the eastern neighbors, rather the opposite.
I will say more and scientific influence too, well, for example, back in the Peloponnesian War, the Greeks did not know how to besiege fortresses, there was even an anecdotal case when the Athenians built up the tower of one fortress and did not calculate it, it collapsed to the delight of the besiegers. The same Greeks in Asia Minor, the Persians blizzard in the tail and mane during the Ionian uprising. Well, the Romans for the Greeks were about the same barbarians as the Greeks for the Persians.

[andelc]

Even in the film They fought for the Motherland there is a scene about him

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Thank you for continuing Nick cycle about rulers! Although I would like "wider and deeper", but what is - that is!
All the good days!

[3x3zsave]

Wider and deeper was Ryzhov, in a cycle about the wars of the Diadochi.

[alexey sidykin]

And about Alexander himself in Voronkova's books Son of Zeus and In the depths of centuries.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Alexey Sedykin

And about Alexander himself in Voronkova's books Son of Zeus and In the depths of centuries.

Fiction is good, but then it is worth adding Thais of Athens - Efremov and Lights on the barrows - Yana.

[Korsar4]

One of the early books I read is "Lights on the Mounds". And for "Thais of Athens" was twice taken. And I didn't read it. Marvelous.

[alexey sidykin]

Quote from Korsar4

for "Thais of Athens" was taken twice. And I didn't read it

I took it three times and to no avail. Although his dilogy "The Great Arc" went with a bang.

[Korsar4]

"On the edge of the ecumene" immediately read. And the hour of the bull. Although the syllable did not seem simple.

[Alexander Salenko]

Yes, Efremov writes heavily, but interestingly.

[Catfish]

I read "Thais" when I was young and liked it, it's too painful for him to describe the girls "tasty" there.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

I read "Thais" when I was young and liked it, it's too painful for him to describe the girls "tasty" there. smile wink

Uh-huh, as a child, I fell for “Emanuel” from one “episode” to “another” !!!

[Catfish]

"Emu" never mastered it to the end, boredom.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Sea Cat

"Emu" never mastered it to the end, boredom.

It all depends on age, at the beginning of childhood you look at pictures, at the end - “description of scenes”!

[Catfish]

A lot depends on the attractiveness of a woman, and on the presentation of the material too. In general, it all depends on what you want to see, from hunger you will eat quinoa.

[Korsar4]

Hungry godmother has all the bread on his mind

[Catfish]

"Without women, there are no women on the set, no" (c)

Hello, Sergey!

[Korsar4]

Hi Constantine!

At least the ambassador was shy! ..
Is Al completely headless?
No matter what they say -
All will bring one to the women!

- Are you back to your tune?
I’ll go to jail, keep in mind!
I’m not just balabon,
Well, I'm leading a policy!

[Catfish]

How glorified is our race by you
And how blessed is your age
Such is the altar set for you
In the hearts of Russian people
Wisdom of our days goddess!
Silent mother, heroine!
God bless your years so
How you generously generous us;
Always follow your advice
Hear the prayers of a humble voice!

Babs, they are also different.

[Korsar4]

That's for sure. And queens are people too.

[Catfish]

Queen of voice and eyes
Enlivened her magnificent feast,
All, glorifying Cleopatra in unison,
In it, recognizing your idol,

[Korsar4]

- As if you would show me sausage, lard, or dumplings with sour cream, otherwise I richly sipped such good

[Catfish]

"The best fish is a sausage, and the best sausage is a stocking with money" (c)

[Korsar4]

How to lie down on the grass
And something tasty to eat
I love to eat, I love to chew
And crunch and chew...

[Catfish]

The luminary in the summer spars in the crown -
You can't go out in the sun.
But in the bushes at a time like this
Nice to drink - eat!

[Korsar4]

Did you call me?
Chase the tea
drive, poet, jam!

[Catfish]

At the samovar, I and my Masha,
And it's already dark outside.
As in a samovar, so our blood boils,
And the moon looks kindly out the window.

[Vladislav 73]

Then I would also add "Sogdiana" by Yavdat Ilyasov. Describes the collapse of the Persian state, Alexander's campaign in Central Asia and the uprising of Spantamano (Spitamen)

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

About Ilyasov, I forgot to write. Thanks for the comment!
Yours!

[Vladislav 73]

Than I can! Sincerely!

[alexey sidykin]

Quote: Vladislav 73

Spantamano (Spitamen)

More correctly - Spitamana

[Vladislav 73]

Quote: Alexey Sedykin

More correctly - Spitamana

Well, maybe I won’t argue ... As it was in the book, I remember it. "For what I bought, for that I sell!" Thanks for the information!

[alexey sidykin]

I haven't read it, I will.

[Moore]

Stateira's face on the fresco reflects the thought: "Lord, there were some talks..."

[3x3zsave]

Shalom, Orthodox! To all those involved - Happy Builder's Day!

[tihonmarine]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Shalom, Orthodox! To all those involved - Happy Builder's Day!

Today Assumption Fast and Honey Saved, everyone who believes is good and healthy.

[Korsar4]

Thank you! And you peace of mind!

[Korsar4]

Happy Holidays, Anton!

- The pig's house should be a fortress! - calmly answered them Naf-Naf, continuing to work.

[3x3zsave]

"Take a lot of bricks,
About five pieces
That would be a nice house!
But where can I get them?" (C)
Thank you, Sergey!

[Korsar4]

Kum Pumpkin is a character close to modern times.

[Andrey Moskvin]

And you too! I am writing from work (behind the rafters are buzzing ).

[3x3zsave]

Thank you Andrey! Mutually!

[Senior seaman]

And you, as well as all those involved

[3x3zsave]

Thank you Ivan!

[Catfish]

Shalom, nephew! Happy Holidays! Heartily!

[3x3zsave]

Thanks, uncle!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

]

A real builder should look like this!!!
Bearded and with a cat!!!
Anton - call could not resist the ernichestvo.

[3x3zsave]

I am for another version

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

It's not for nothing that Nikolay's Mikado caresses you!!!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Sea Cat

Shalom, nephew! Happy Holidays! Heartily!

Yes! Uncle Kostya respected! For the first time I see in his post a picture without women and cats!
Anton - Buddy with a HOLIDAY!
Now I hope in time!

[3x3zsave]

Thank you, Vlad!

[Catfish]

For the first time I see in his post a picture without women and cats!

Erect in vain, dear. The number of pistols, machine guns and tanks laid out by me clearly speaks of the number of characters you have voiced.
PS I dare to ask, are you a misogynist and catophobic?

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Well, Konstantin, you issued a conclusion, I even sat down so as not to fall !!!

[Catfish]

It's nice to hear - it means I can still impress!

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sea Cat

the characters you voiced.
PS I dare to ask, are you a misogynist and catophobic?

You can not love a cat, but women should always be loved, and if your woman has a cat, then you will love him (my grandmothers always had cats at home).

[Catfish]

Good evening, Vlad.

It is impossible not to love cats, as I say a cat. Well, women, of course.
We also always had cats in the house.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sea Cat

It is impossible not to love cats, as I say a cat. Well, women, of course.

Good evening Konstantin.
I love dogs, horses, since I was born at a stud farm, and cats, because my great-grandmothers and grandmother had about a dozen of them.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sea Cat

We also always had cats in the house.

Yes, we all had cats and cats and dogs. Now they keep some kind of decorative rabbits at home, but I have a kid, there were always (not decorative) rabbits under 50 heads.
For two days I was in a country house, the temperature was 32-34 in the shade, horror for the Baltic states, the muzzle was burned like a brick. In cataclysm!. Where are we rolling?

[Catfish]

Yes, the heat has got thoroughly, we are all crawling as if we were crippled. So, you wait all winter for this summer, and when it comes, you can’t wait for the cool autumn with its rains and frosts at night. Not life, but a panopticon.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Sea Cat

Not life, but a panopticon.

Well, you can’t do this, God, then it’s hot, then it’s cold, it could be softer!

[Catfish]

In general, I have a feeling that the human race finally got mother Earth and she decided to get rid of us by any means.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Okay, I believe it, otherwise I thought that canophilia suspected me !!!

[Catfish]

And what kind of animal is this, canophilia? Hear it for the first time.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Sea Cat

And what kind of animal is this, canophilia? Hear it for the first time.

Canis is a dog, phil is love.

[Catfish]

Thank you, here is a new word appeared in stock. Psinophilia.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Sea Cat

Thank you, here is a new word appeared in stock. Psinophilia.

So two catophiles talked about catophobes !!!

[tihonmarine]

Alexander III the Great: forever in history!
Nicholas I Alexander III, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin - for me the greatest people in Russia.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: tihonmarine

Alexander III the Great: forever in history!
Nicholas I Alexander III, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin - for me the greatest people in Russia.

I would add to them Alexander Nevsky and a dozen other rulers who adequately held the reins of government in our country.

[3x3zsave]

Alexander's mother Olympiada was a woman of strong character
In the history of the world there are few women with a more vile reputation than the Olympiad I of Epirus.
Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich!

[Korsar4]

The frame of the duel with Por does not look very believable. But the personality of Tsar Pora quite pleased Alexander.

Yes, and the battle of the Hydaspes is the last one when moving to the East.

[alexey sidykin]

Quote from Korsar4

The frame of the duel with Por does not look very believable. But the personality of Tsar Pora quite pleased Alexander.

Yes, and the battle of the Hydaspes is the last one when moving to the East.

A big battle, and so there were enough battles. By the way, he was wounded in India.

[Korsar4]

I agree.
But I will not name the subsequent battles.

[3x3zsave]

So, finally, we got to the personality of Alexander the Great,
I'm still waiting for us to get to the personality of Charlemagne. At this pace, in 5 years, probably ...

[alexey sidykin]

It could have been written better, otherwise it was like a schoolboy was making a summary.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Alexey Sedykin

It could have been written better, otherwise it was like a schoolboy was making a summary.

Pen in hand, go for it!!!

[alexey sidykin]

No... I know my level. There is knowledge in the head, but I won’t pull it. The same will come out.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Alexey Sedykin

No... I know my level. There is knowledge in the head, but I won’t pull it. The same will come out.

It's good that you admit it!
Seriously, the work of even strong Authors can be successful or not very good.
Today is not a masterpiece, but I think it is not correct to compare with a school essay.

[alexey sidykin]

Well, why not correctly ... school essays are very talented.

[Vladislav 73]

In any case, Alexandria of Egypt and Marakanda Extreme, today's Samarkand, are well known to everyone.

The author has a serious inaccuracy. Alexander did not found any Samarkand. According to archaeological data, Ancient Marakanda was founded in the 400th century BC. era, i.e. is the same age as Rome for example. By the time Alexander's troops arrived, Marakanda had already existed for 1975 years, it was a major center - the capital of the satrapy of Bactria and Sogdiana. It is known that Alexander's troops reached the Syr Darya, the then Jaksart (aka Seyhun), and that's where he founded the fortress of Alexandria Eskhata, Alexandria Extreme. In Soviet times, a detailed topographic survey and archaeological excavations (for example, August XNUMX) confirmed the presence of an ancient fortress on the territory of the city of Khujand (Khujand), in Soviet times - Leninabad. Accompanying finds made it possible to establish quite accurately the time of its construction - the first quarter of the XNUMXth century BC. e., that is, the time of the arrival of the troops of Alexander the Great to the Syr Darya.

[Diviz]

This is a Western story. There is a term scourge of God means there is a term scourge of Ashuramazda. Everything is fair and without double standards.

[Vladislav 73]

Quote from DiViZ

Everything is fair and without double standards.

Yeah, how is it with Moses: "The law says: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Book of Exodus 21:24) Everything is clear, to the point and without double standards!

Quote from DiViZ

There is a term scourge of God means there is a term scourge of Ashuramazda.

No matter how you look at the history of mankind, there are only "Scourges" around and "Judges" are eager to judge someone, punish someone ... Massagetae - the Scourge of the Persians, Macedonian - the Terrible Judge of the Achaemenids, Attila - the Scourge of God and further down the list ... The United States is still trying to prove that they are the universal hegemon... However, there is nothing new in the history of mankind! As the prophet Ecclesiastes says: “What has been is what will be; and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. already in the ages that were before us" (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

[Diviz]

What story or whose.?
Why create a cult of personality?
The names of the rulers of the Cimmerians are unknown, the name of the founder of the Achaeminids is also unknown. Why do the Sassanids have a Zoroastrian religion and the Hephthalites and the Huns do not. Where the Etruscans and Phoenicians came from is also unknown, but the likelihood that they are residents of North Africa, descendants of the Berbers, is high. So why do we need to know about Macedonian and know the distorted Greek alphabet.
In the Phoenician language there is no legend about Atlantis, but all because the Phoenicians Pilasgians and Etruscans are the inhabitants of Atlantis. So why do we need a distorted story.

[faterdom]

There was, however, a failure in the glorious life of Alexander, and a very large one.
This is the assault on the city of Tyre. No, the city itself was taken for the first time in centuries of existence, although it was on an island - Alexander ordered the island to be made a peninsula, that is, he filled up the strait separating it from the mainland.
But here the Phoenicians, apparently, owning a strong fleet, managed to drag the gold and purple accumulated over the centuries of successful trade to Carthage, that is, it is likely that there was more money and valuables there than the Persians or Egyptians, let alone the rather poor Greeks .
Alexander was furious, and ordered to completely destroy the city, and sprinkle with salt so that nothing would grow there.
And then, having gone on a campaign to the East, he obviously was going to the West (not to Western Europe, of course, there was nothing interesting for him then) - to North Africa, and Carthage could have been destroyed a couple of centuries earlier than in real history.
And it could also become the new capital of Alexander - the city was advanced at that time, with water supply and sewerage, where are the Greeks or Latins ...
But, they were lucky then, Alexander died very young, and he did not have enough time for the Phoenicians.

[sivuch]

With Philotas, as I read, this was the case. Some captain or centurion, in general, approximately in this rank, had some kind of teenager. And once, after stormy sex, he spoke of his ardent desire to kill Alexander Filippovich. He immediately told his older brother and he decided to immediately go and report. At Alexander's tent they met Philotas, who refused to let them through. Then they went to someone else, it seems - to Hephaestion, he immediately missed. The centurion offered resistance during the arrest and was killed. Then they took up Philota and he confessed under torture (well, as if not surprising), but there was a conspiracy or not - now it’s hard to say.

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Quote: Shurik70

As for "could" - hardly. Philip was a talented ruler who raised the economy and military power of the country.

What a monstrous nonsense. You can immediately see a certified historian. War is always an economic act first of all. Therefore, talented military leaders were, first of all, experts in the economy - Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Stalin. In general, one word is enough to designate a great commander (name or pseudonym). There were many Hannibals, but as a great commander, only one ...

[Seal]

Great? And who exactly is the "Great"?? Here is what Arrian writes:

“... Meanwhile, Alexander went on a campaign, not counting on anyone but himself. He did not run away from the Great King, conquered the tribes that interfered with him on the way to the sea ... ".

or here

“... A great reward awaits them in this battle: they will defeat not the satraps of Darius, not the cavalry deployed at the Granicus, not 20000 foreign mercenaries, but the very color of the Persians and the Medes, the tribes inhabiting Asia and subordinate to the Persians and the Medes, the greatest king, personally present..."

Arrian writes in plain text that the great king and Alexander are different people.
Still.

“... The Athenians left their city. For a long time later they resisted the Lacedaemonians, fought with their allies and the great king ... "

. And in this case, Arrian's concept of "great king" here is also by no means identical to the concept of "king of Macedonia."
By the way, our ancestors had a slightly different opinion about the campaigns of Alexander.

[Illanatol]

Quote: paul3390

And the fact that he would have disposed of the conquered much better is beyond doubt. His power - most likely would not have collapsed immediately after the death of the ruler. Painfully gone and was cunning.

controversial point of view. Philip is just a provincial compared to Alexander.
The latter thought much more broadly and was more imbued with the imperial spirit.
And Philip ... he would most likely simply have robbed the Persians to the skin, he would not have included the lands of the Persians and the peoples vassal from them in his state. He even treated the Greeks arrogantly, that there were Persians ... it would never have occurred to him to spread the Hellenic culture throughout the Oikoumene.
Macedonia would have risen and become rich due to large-scale robbery, everyone else would have simply lost without receiving any bonuses.
The power of Philip would have held out longer, but still would have declined, not leaving such a noticeable mark in History as the empire of Alexander.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Alexander Salenko

So Hellenism is also a feedback with the culture of the East, it is not a purely Greek cultural influence on the eastern neighbors, rather the opposite.

The process went both ways, so to speak. Moreover, the Eastern peoples turned out to be more receptive and tolerant to foreign culture and more honest, recognizing other people's priorities. And the Greeks and Romans often simply appropriated other people's achievements.
And we, in many ways the heirs of the Greco-Roman civilization, are a little embarrassed that the ancient Egyptians used the "Pythagorean theorem" before Pythagoras was born.

[Viktor Sergeev]

The worst ruler of Macedonia, killed a bunch of people, seized territories that were not connected with each other, as a result, everything fell apart at one moment of Alexander's death.