Military Review

"Pink Panthers" by Alexander the Great

78
In the spring of 334 BC, troops of the western coalition led by the most powerful state of those times, Macedonia, landed on the coast of Asia Minor in order to "revenge the Persian Empire for the reproach of Athenian shrines" and bring Greek democracy to the peoples of the East. Who could have imagined that in the 21st century история will repeat ...


"Pink Panthers" by Alexander the Great

This campaign can not be drawn as a victory for a handful of brave men over millions. On the contrary, Alexander's army was the most numerous and organized, which only the preceding ancient history knew. ” So wrote the Russian military theorist and historian A. A. Svechin about the Eastern Expedition of Alexander the Great. Just as then, the overwhelming superiority in organization, armament, equipment and tactics allowed the coalition forces of the West to suppress the resistance of not only obviously weak Taliban formations, but also the regular army of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in a matter of weeks.

Let the battle of Alexander learn strategists. But his fighters not only smashed the enemy in grand battles, but also carried out large-scale special operations against the distant ancestors of the present rebels and terrorists throughout the East. The methods of conducting all types of intelligence, counterintelligence, psychological warfare and special forces raids, first used by Alexander in the East, are still relevant, interesting and instructive for relevant experts in this field. Sources are stingy, but when you study them carefully you begin to understand - the victories of the great commander forged not only the legendary phalanx and the deadly cavalry.

Intelligence kit

It would be naive to think that the Eastern campaign was not prepared in advance, including along the line of intelligence. The idea of ​​the Eastern campaign belonged to Alexander's father, Tsar Philip, and was implemented by him. In parallel with the creation of separate reconnaissance and assault units in the enemy’s headquarters, major cities and strategic points, residents were recruited, recruiting agents, identifying opponents of the regime and establishing a system of continuous and operational data transfer to the coalition headquarters. Alexander adopted an already extensive and effective reconnaissance system and special purpose units prepared for action in the special conditions.

From the beginning and to the end of the campaign, the commander of his GRU was the commander, whom Alexander trusted most of all - the future pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy. As befits the head of the secret service, very little was known about his work for the time being. Historians have noted that he was "almost imperceptible" until the moment when the army entered India. Apparently, secrecy was observed already in those ancient times. His deputy and head of the counterintelligence service was Alexander Hephaestion’s best friend.

In the conditions of the long march it was important to track the state of affairs among the comrades-in-arms and the troops for possible conspiracies and riots. Counterintelligence has always been proactive and very tough, adhering to the principle “it is better to execute one innocent than to leave two enemies alive”. Historians are still arguing about the famous "plot Philoty", when one of Alexander's closest friends was arrested "for passive participation in the plot" of a certain Dymn against Alexander. One of the conspirators informed him about the allegedly preparing murder of the king, but Filota did not let the cause go until the informer turned to another person. Methods of inquiry conformed to the standards of those times. As Quint Curcius Rufus wrote, “first, when he was tormented with whipping, then with fire, and not in order to attain the truth, but in order to punish him, he not only made no sound, but also restrained moans. But when his body, swollen from a multitude of wounds, could no longer withstand the blows of the scourge on the naked bones, he promised, if his sufferings died, to say what they wanted. ”

There were also direct examples of Alexander’s participation in “loyalty checks”. In his army "there was a Persian named Sisen, once sent to King Philip the ruler of Egypt; receiving gifts and honors of every kind, he exchanged his homeland for exile, followed Alexander to Asia and was listed among his loyal friends. It was to him that a Cretan soldier handed over a letter sealed with a ring with a seal unknown to him. This letter was sent by the commander Darius Nabarzan, persuading Sisen to do anything worthy of his origin and character, in order to earn the honor of Darius. This letter of innocent Sisen often tried to convey to Alexander, but seeing that the king was busy with various worries and preparations for war, he waited for a convenient opportunity, and this heightened the suspicion that he was plotting a crime. For the letter had previously fallen into the hands of Alexander, who, having read it and sealed Sisen with a ring, he ordered to give it to the Persian in order to test the faithfulness of the barbarian. But since the latter did not approach Alexander for several days, it was decided that he had hidden the letter with a criminal purpose; in the campaign he was killed by the Cretans, no doubt, on the orders of the king. "


Of course, there were also much more massive secret events. During the siege of Halicarnassus, in order to clarify the real mood among the soldiers, Alexander allowed the soldiers, despite the established order, to write letters home. All of them were read in counterintelligence. Information that dissatisfaction is growing in the army has been documented, active agitators have been identified and removed from the troops. After this, mail censorship became mandatory.

Alexander did not change what was good before him. Having saved an efficiently working pouch and courier service system, he only introduced a new encryption scheme. He was engaged in agent intelligence - during the siege of the city of Halicarnassus, he personally sent agents to establish contact with the local "underground".

But for the majority, of course, it will be much more interesting to find out how effectively the troop reconnaissance and assault units of Alexander acted.
It is no secret that the commander loved adventures and often himself conducted reconnaissance, as it was before the battle of Gavgamelah.

“Having taken the royal silt, one detachment of“ friends ”, and from the peon's prodrome, Alexander rushed forward rapidly, ordering the rest of the army to follow them with the usual step. The Persian horsemen, seeing the rapidly advancing army of Alexander, rushed back into the whole horse race; Alexander began a stubborn pursuit. Most escaped; some — those whose horses had come down — were killed; some with horses were captured. They learned from them that Darius with a large army is nearby. ”

What kind of prodrome is this? In Greek, ornate "running ahead." Literally - intelligence. Thus, for the first time in history, the mission of the light cavalry brigade, with a total number of approximately 900 copies, initially consisting of four to five squadrons, was correctly identified. She worked as intelligence with the king, and independently.

“On the fourth day after the crossing, the scouts told Alexander that the enemy horsemen were visible on the plain, but it is difficult to guess how many there are. He went ahead, building an army in battle order. Other scouts rushed in; these saw more precisely: in their words, the riders, it seems, will be no more than a thousand ... "

Who were they?

Spartak countrymen

It is not difficult to determine this type of intelligence of Alexander’s army.

In the last century, a fresco with a single image of the commander of the cavalry reconnaissance unit of the Macedonian army finally fell off the walls of an ancient crypt in Macedonia. At the last moment, the rider’s figure in a pink raincoat, spearing a Persian infantryman, was copied. He was identified by his cloak. It is known that, among other things, even in the army of Father Alexander - Philip, all branches of the military began to be distinguished by the color of the “form”. Exploration got pink.

It is interesting that the rider from the crypt was depicted with a beard. This meant that he had given his life for his country during the time of Philip. Why? It is known that Alexander, before the Eastern campaign, obliged all his warriors to shave their beards, “so that the enemy couldn’t miss them”. Intelligence to execute this order was especially difficult. The fact is that the Macedonians here were only commanders. But ordinary prodrome intelligence were not the Greeks and Macedonians, and the Thracians, which indicates that Alexander did not pick up people on their own, but according to their abilities. It is about them that the ancient historian writes:

“Alexander at that time approached the river Granik, leading the army in the ranks; He built the hoplites with a double phalanx, placed the riders from the flanks, and ordered the convoy to go behind. Gegeloh commanded intelligence; riders armed with sarissas were with him, and about 5000 were lightly armed men ... Alexander was already near the river Granik when scouts rode up to him with the news that Persians were ready to fight behind Hranik ”.


Like now, the scouts had the reputation of dashing people, but the fame was hard for them. Separated from the main forces, they clashed with the enemy, raided and ambushed, cut off communications, intercepted messengers, took languages, and counted enemy forces. Just like now, they did not wear “armor”, and instead of a blanket they put leopard skins on the backs of horses. Prodroma never allowed the enemy to suddenly attack the main forces of Alexander’s army. Sometimes the prodroms are compared with the Cossacks, but, unlike the Cossack troops, they were commanded by alien Macedonians. Of course, the people were specific. Before the decisive battle with the Persians, Alexander promised eternal glory to the Macedonians and the Greeks. And this is what he said to his northern neighbors:

"But to the Illyrians and the Thracians, who were accustomed to living by robbery, he ordered to look at the enemy army, sparkling with gold and purple, bearing prey, and not weapon; may they, like men, take away the gold from these weakly feminine peoples and exchange their bare rocks, frozen from eternal cold, for rich fields and meadows of Persians.

And everyone in this battle fought for his. And, as you know, successfully.

In addition to the "mobile units", complete intelligence of the Macedonian king also included real attack aircraft.

Agriane - "Flying Warriors"

"But against those whom Darius sent forth to occupy the mountain range, Alexander put the agrians recently brought from Greece."

In the army of Alexander, there were only about a thousand. Light infantry, which, at Gaugamela, in a fantastic way repulsed the attack of the heavy Persian cavalry. Agrians - also a Thracian tribe, the Highlanders, the northern neighbors of Macedonia, not only participated in all major battles, but also the first to occupy passes and narrow passages in the mountains, stormed the cities. Probably, the historian Arrian means them in particular, describing the legendary "flying warriors" who distinguished themselves during the storming of the Rock - an impregnable mountain fortress in Central Asia:

“When Alexander approached Scala, he saw steep walls inaccessible for the assault ... Nevertheless, Alexander decided to take this place by storm. He offered to begin negotiations and promised that they would return home sound and safe if they surrender this place. Those with laughter, in a barbaric way, advised Alexander to look for winged warriors, who would take this mountain to him: ordinary people have nothing to think about. Then Alexander ordered to announce that the first who climb the Rock will receive 12 talents as a reward, the second will receive the second reward, the third - the third, and so on ...

Soldiers assembled were accustomed to climb rocks on the number of 300 during sieges. They prepared small iron crutches with which they strengthened tents in the ground ... By hammering these crutches into the ground where it was visible, or into completely solidified snow, they pulled themselves onto a rock, some in one place, some in another. During this ascent, about 30 people died ... The rest already at dawn occupied the top of the mountain; having climbed there, they began to swing their handkerchiefs in the direction of the Macedonian camp: as they were ordered by Alexander. He sent a herald and told him to call out barbaric guards so that they would not pull further, but give up, because the winged people were found and already occupied the top of their mountains. And the herald immediately showed the soldiers at the top.

The barbarians, shocked by the unexpected sight, decided that the mountain was occupied by a much larger number of fully armed people, and surrendered. ”
They were the 600 kilometers that pursued Darius, then two days and the 110 kilometers drove Bess. And then there was “Scala-2” - 200 meters vertically during the storming of Aorn mountain in present-day Pakistan. By law, commanded by the "flying warriors" of Alexander, of course, the Macedonian - Attal.



“Two in One”: DSB and Marines

But among the parts of the special operations forces of Alexander were purely Macedonian formations. During the siege of Tire, Alexander went to the attack of the city from the ship of the “shield bearers” - the hypaspists. There were few of them - three thousand, and in his army they were divided into three brigades - the chiliarchy.

“Three days later, after waiting for windless weather, Alexander, calling for the commanders of infantry to fight, led the vehicles to the city. First, a large part of the wall was shaken; when the breach was wide enough, Alexander ordered the ships with machines to sail and approach the other two, who were carrying the footbridges: he expected to transfer them to the breach of the wall. On one of these ships were shield bearers under the command of Admet, and on the other the regiment of Ken: the so-called "foot friends." He himself was going together with the shield bearers to ascend where it was needed on the wall ... When the ships with Alexander approached the city and the walkways with them were transferred to the wall, the shield bearers briskly rushed along them to the wall ... Alexander followed the soldiers himself, taking a lively part in the matter ... First the wall was taken in the place where Alexander was in control; he threw off the Thyrians without difficulty, as soon as the Macedonians crossed the footbridge and became a firm foot on the ground; Admett first climbed the wall; calling his followers, he immediately fell, struck by a spear. "

As historians write, these were elite warriors, specially trained to storm cities and to act in rough terrain. After the capture of Tire, it turned out that they were able to take cities from the sea.


Where did they come from? The entire corpus of hypaspists was originally formed from foot armor-bearers (shield bearers) of the royal satellite geteyrs. At first they were called so - “Shchitonostsy getyry.” The elite unit of hypaspistes, argirapid-like, “silver-shielded”, was also part of the royal guard, agemes.

It is interesting that in battle they also acted together with the getyers, effectively covering the vulnerable lower part of their cavalry and the corps of their horses.
Centuries and millennia have passed. But isn't the words of Quintus Curtius, the Roman, about the fate of the soldiers of the expeditionary forces in the East now relevant:
“They will again be scorched by the merciless sun, and they will be chased into places that nature itself did not intend to look at mortals. Because all the time there are new weapons, new enemies. Even if they pass through these lands and enter into a new war, what reward awaits them ahead? ”

From our dossier

His father, Philip, spent many years as a hostage in Thebes, reconnoitered all the details of the then new products in military affairs, ranging from the construction and training of the phalanx to the Persian battle technique. But Alexander himself was a great master of becoming “amongst others”.

A headache for expeditionary corps leaders in faraway countries is always the legitimization of their actions. At that time, the advice of Aristotle’s “humanist” did not prove useful in practice: “Treat the Hellenes as a leader, and the barbarians as a despot, take the first care as friends and relatives, and use those as animals or plants”, or “international duty” And the establishment of a democratic order. In order to impress the local tribes, the conqueror needed an impressive biography and family ties with their rulers. Alexander in this case is an unattainable value. Depending on the situation, he seemed to be a god, as it was in Egypt, or the legal heir to the thrones of all the captured countries and territories. In addition to the already well-known facts, you can bring one more.

... During the preparation for the Persian campaign, Alexander suddenly wanted to marry the daughter of the Caria vicar-superior Pixador Ade. Until now, it was not clear why Father Papa Philip sulked so much then on his son Sasha. Moreover, he did not mind at all that his other son would marry her from another wife. Further more. Taking the city of Halicarnassus, Alexander handed over Kariya to the possession of an older sister of the satrap, and she adopted him in gratitude.


This story is considered only a strange quirk of the young king. But it is worth digging a little deeper and it turns out that Alexander did nothing for nothing.

His great-great-grandfather and namesake Alexander I, Xerxes’s faithful companion in the fight against the Greeks and three hundred Spartans, gave his own sister Gygey to marry the Persian satrap Bagoi. Their son Aminta, who was born to them, even received a city from the Persian king, and then this branch of the Macedonian dynasty disappeared forever from the pages of history. But, as it turned out later, Bagoy was a relative of the great king Darius I. And Alexander, the adoptive sister of the satrap Kariya, was from the Aminta clan. Thus, Alexander, in an elegant and legal way, became ... a relative of the Persian royal dynasty of the Achaemenids, and with the same rights as the current king Darius, after which he legitimately demanded the crown of the Persian Empire.

The footage from the film “Alexander” by Ridley Scott used in the article reflects the general opinion of specialists - the armament of that era in it, as opposed to an ambiguous plot, is transmitted as authentic as possible. In the photo - versions of the armor of the Macedonian rider - shiny steel armor and canvas shell. Such shells were made of several layers of canvas, stitched together and soaked in a saturated salt solution. The canvas was so saturated with salt that when it dried it was difficult to cut it even with an ax. Alexander knowingly preferred to wear him in a fight.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.bratishka.ru/
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. RUSS
    RUSS 18 January 2014 09: 49
    +7
    Wonderful article.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 18 January 2014 16: 08
      +1
      Quote: RUSS
      Wonderful article.


      It’s not enough to be a genius, you have to be born at the right time and in the right place ...
    2. ver_
      ver_ 19 January 2014 12: 25
      -7
      Bullshit ... Alexander the Great = Alexander Nevsky ... The whole history of Western countries is licked from the history of Russia ... Guy Julius Caesar = Yuri (name received at birth, George - name received at baptism) Dolgoruky (his hands reached Italy) = Saint George = George the Victorious = Chingiz Khan (Caesar Khan) = Emperor ..., his brother John Caliph = Ivan Kalita = Yaroslav Vsevolodovich = Khan Father = Khan Batya = Khan Batuy - father of Alexander Nevsky .... Founded the Vatican in the second campaign to Europe (His brother Yuri died of a wound received on the river Vozha ...) ... He called to his son Alexander, where he ruled Crete (and is buried there ...) ....
  2. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 18 January 2014 10: 03
    +4
    Such shells were made of several layers of fabric sewn together and soaked in a saturated salt solution. The canvas was so saturated with salt that when it dried, it was difficult to cut it even with an ax

    Probably during the battle, and even in the sun, the sensations were indescribable.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 18 January 2014 11: 30
      +9
      Alexander was and is my idol. For his short life, he literally shook off a sleepy story. It is a pity that such a PERSON was corrupted in the film of the same name, portraying him as a neurotic and blue. But other personalities in history, such as Caesar and Genghis Khan sincerely admired Alexander the Great.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 January 2014 22: 28
        +4
        Quote: xetai9977
        It is a pity that such a PERSONALITY was corrupted in the film of the same name, portraying it as a neurotic and blue.

        Well, as if at that time it was not considered reprehensible. There is a joke about this (spied on this site, let them forgive me for maybe not quite the correct statement):
        Lecture at the Institute of History, the theme of Sparta and the Spartans.
        Teacher:
        - The Spartans often went on campaigns for years, this united the soldiers so much that they often became lovers. This was encouraged by the commanders because in battle, the threat to life of a friend-lover made them fight selflessly, be merciless to the enemy.
        The bespectacled student raised his hand sarcastically asks:
        -So, the Spartans were these ...., well, so to speak homosexuals?
        -Homics speak? God forbid you to meet such a fagot face to face ... No fellow student, they were not fagots, they were vicious fighting n ----_ ses!
        wink
      2. ver_
        ver_ 19 January 2014 12: 30
        -5
        Just do not need this .... Caesar and Genghis Khan are one and the same person - Yuri Georgy Dolgoruky - the uncle of Alexander Nevsky = Alexander of Macedon ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. atalef
          atalef 19 January 2014 12: 48
          +1
          Quote: ver_
          Just do not need this .... Caesar and Genghis Khan are one and the same person - Yuri Georgy Dolgoruky - the uncle of Alexander Nevsky = Alexander of Macedon ...


          Fomenko have read !!!!
          He writes beautifully (for certain circles), only scientific is not enough
          Read - it will be interesting
          http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/fomenko.htm
          1. Klin klinovv
            Klin klinovv 19 January 2014 19: 09
            0
            scientific is not enough? Well, explain then the scientist's fan on what the place of the KULIKOV BATTLE is justified.
        3. Salamander
          Salamander 22 January 2014 21: 45
          0
          Quote: ver_
          Just do not need this .... Caesar and Genghis Khan are one and the same person - Yuri Georgy Dolgoruky - the uncle of Alexander Nevsky = Alexander of Macedon ...


          I understand that it is useless to explain ... crying
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alexander Petrovich
      Alexander Petrovich 18 January 2014 11: 34
      0
      Then this magic recipe remained)
  3. Alexander Petrovich
    Alexander Petrovich 18 January 2014 10: 41
    +1
    An excellent and very interesting historical article, when Alexander the Great was an idol for me, I read it with pleasure.
  4. datur
    datur 18 January 2014 10: 51
    +1
    actually glued the shells !!! so to speak cheap and cheerful !! and the most vulnerable places were reinforced with iron!
  5. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 18 January 2014 11: 20
    0
    Yes, people of such a rank as Alexander the Great appear very rarely, and perhaps they can be listed on the fingers of one hand, Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, perhaps that's all. What kind of will you have to have to literally break the story through the knee, concentrating it in an insignificant According to historical standards, the period of human life has so many events. How much did he manage to rule? Roughly speaking, 13 years, in these 13 years he has done more than some nations throughout his entire existence.
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 18 January 2014 16: 52
      0
      And why is Peter 1 or Stalin worse?
      1. Orang
        Orang 18 January 2014 18: 16
        -1
        Quote: Standard Oil
        And why is Peter 1 or Stalin worse?

        No worse. Just not as spectacular. A brilliant conqueror.
  6. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 18 January 2014 12: 27
    +2
    In his army “there was a Persian named Sisen, who was once sent to King Philip by the ruler of Egypt; having received gifts and honors of every kind, he exchanged his homeland for exile, followed Alexander to Asia and was listed among his loyal friends .... But since the latter did not come close to Alexander for several days, they decided that he had hidden the letter for a criminal purpose; in the campaign he was killed by the Cretans, no doubt, on the orders of the king "
    A good reminder to those who exchanged their homeland for life in a foreign land. hi
  7. MAG
    MAG 18 January 2014 13: 44
    +3
    My opinion is that the author is wishful thinking. With the maximum number of Alexander's troops in Asia Minor at 50 thousand, and if you subtract these "special troops", then the simple infantry was oh, how little. Everything is much simpler it is the versatility of his soldiers and not their certain imprisonment.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 18 January 2014 22: 34
      +1
      Quote: MAG
      My opinion is that the author is wishful thinking. With the maximum number of Alexander's troops in Asia Minor at 50 thousand, and if you subtract these "special troops", then the simple infantry was oh, how little. Everything is much simpler it is the versatility of his soldiers and not their certain imprisonment.

      The fact is that Alexander was able to grow his army at the expense of the conquered peoples. Those. the Greeks / Macedonians themselves were not many in the army. After many years, Genghis Khan and his commanders similarly carried out the acquisition of his not at all numerous army. At the same time, the soldiers of the conquered peoples went to serve them absolutely voluntarily, which somewhat refutes the myth of the supposedly excessive cruelty of the same Mongols.
      1. MAG
        MAG 19 January 2014 11: 14
        0
        I agree, but when he landed, he had no more than 50 thousand and it is stupid to see the "special forces" of antiquity in the personal protection, as well as to see the marines "there")) In WWII, the great rivers were forced by the infantrymen and from this they did not become marines.
  8. asadov
    asadov 18 January 2014 13: 46
    +1
    I liked the article. Once again I was convinced that the correct use of arms and types of troops leads to brilliant and anemic victories.
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 18 January 2014 22: 55
      0
      Quote: asadov
      I liked the article. Once again I was convinced that the correct use of arms and types of troops leads to brilliant and anemic victories.


      And then most of the victories were anemic. After the death of Alexander, they became even less anemic - the mercenary Greeks very often simply sided with the enemy, and the garrisons surrendered the city.
  9. moremansf
    moremansf 18 January 2014 13: 57
    0
    Thanks to the author, a wonderful analytical article, very interesting and informative !!! You can include in a new history textbook ...
  10. spirit
    spirit 18 January 2014 14: 10
    +1
    For Alexander, the motto hu ** would really suit ** war is the main maneuver))) his cavalry strikes were unpredictable. and not planned ahead, he was guided by the situation! and in this he was a genius. The great Roman legions lost tens of thousands of legionnaires before learning something like this and learning how to deal with it.
  11. Cristall
    Cristall 18 January 2014 14: 28
    +3
    Alexander is not only the Great, but also the most "hyped" military leader of history. He had a lot of writers with him, and he himself took into account the lessons of Aristotle and the Hellenes in general.
    What can I say, he loved the war. She replaced him with his short life.
    And each commander imagined himself a new Alexander.
    1. Sour
      Sour 18 January 2014 14: 56
      +2
      Quote: Cristall
      There were a lot of writers with him,

      Well, not a bunch, but rather a bunch.
      Julius Caesar did not need such close ones, for he himself was a good writer. I think you read his "Notes"? So Alexander Filippovich is still a modest man in comparison with Caesar, though he did not promote himself, but entrusted others.
    2. Volkhov
      Volkhov 20 January 2014 08: 38
      0
      Quote: Cristall
      And each commander imagined himself a new Alexander.

      And in the Russian Federation there is such a person, and it is also trying to conquer Persia, only with galleys it’s bad luck - they drowned ... it’s possible to lose a job.
  12. Sour
    Sour 18 January 2014 14: 41
    +6
    The idea of ​​the "Eastern campaign" did not belong to Philip, Alexander's father, as the author of the article claims. It was preached by the Spartan king Agesilaus, and then by Jason of Fera, the Thessalian ruler, who had 28 thousand excellent troops. If not for Jason's untimely death, then he probably could have led at least half of Hellas, and this was quite enough to defeat Persia, taking into account Jason's organizational abilities.
    An important ideologist of the "Eastern campaign" was the Athenian rhetorician Isocrates. It was he who clearly formulated the ideology of the Greco-Macedonian "drang nach osten", formulated goals and methods, and called on all Hellenes to unite around Macedonia.
    The campaign of the Greco-Macedonians to the east was brewing, was inevitable. One does not have to be surprised that Alexander began this campaign, but that this campaign was not started before him.
    The military weakness of Persia and the superiority of the Greeks in weapons and tactics were evident even in the time of Xenophon. Who has not read "Anabasis" - I recommend reading it.
  13. Alexander D.
    Alexander D. 18 January 2014 15: 14
    +2
    Actually, the director of the film is Alexander, not Ridley Scott, but Oliver Stone. Alexander was great, no matter how the author of this opus tried to compare it with European and American interventionists. He himself did what they cannot make a crowd for several decades!
  14. calocha
    calocha 18 January 2014 15: 18
    -1
    Yeah, the Macedonian Zopireon sent to conquer Scythia over the Danube from the campaign of Zopirion no one returned .... And Alexander fought with the Russians, but he did not win, as a result, peace was made ....
    1. zavesa01
      zavesa01 18 January 2014 18: 51
      +1
      Once I read a description of the Scythian embassy at Macedonian. The essence of the negotiations can be conveyed simply "Boy, go to fight in other places. As you learn, you can come." That is why I crawled through the mountains to India. Just like Rome in its time did not climb further than the Germanic tribes. Goat-loving bare-assed soldiers are not the best warriors.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 18 January 2014 21: 56
        0
        Quote: zavesa01
        Like Rome in its time, it didn’t go further than the Germanic tribes.


        Further Germans?
        1. zavesa01
          zavesa01 18 January 2014 22: 29
          +3
          Exactly wink In 16 BC e. the Romans were defeated by the Germanic tribes invading Gaul. One of the legions was defeated and lost one of its banners. The situation even required the personal intervention of Emperor Augustus. In the year 9, a powerful uprising broke out already in the province conquered by the Romans in Germany. Then there was the famous battle in the Teutoburg Forest (between Weser and Ems), which brought to naught all the efforts of Rome to seize territories beyond the Rhine. The Germanic Cherusque tribes commanded by Arminius - a Cherusque who was in Roman service, trapped and almost completely destroyed three Roman legions under the command of Quintilius Vara, who committed suicide. In 13, Germanicus was appointed commander in chief in Germany at its disposal on the Rhine 8 legions. In 14, after the death of Octavian Augustus, Tiberius became the new emperor (reigned in 14–37), and Germanicus launched a campaign against the Germans. In 16, he defeated the army of Arminius at the Battle of Idistavisio and at the Battle of Angrivarierval. By the way, in the battle of Idistavisio, taking place in the Weser Valley, the future procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, commanded the cavalry unit. In 17, Germanicus celebrated a triumph for the victory over the Germans. As a result, he made three trips over the Rhine and reached Elba, but the Romans did not gain a foothold there. The expansion to the north and northeast failed, which largely predetermined the further development of historical events.
          Unlike the Saxons whom Rome bent, the Germans turned out to be worthy people who were able to fight back. By the way, modern history confirms that the Germans are more honest and better than the British. repeat
          1. zvereok
            zvereok 18 January 2014 22: 52
            +1
            Var! Give me back my legions!

            Then (after the battle in the Teutoburg Forest) the Germans, too, by the way bent. In addition, there is a version that Quintilius Vara was defeated in his camp, suddenly attacking him when he was on trial, and a separate convoy of troops was destroyed in the forest. There is another version that you are now setting out that Var, having recaptured the first onslaught of the Germans, hit the road and was defeated in the forest.
            1. zavesa01
              zavesa01 18 January 2014 23: 03
              0
              Yes, in this regard, I will not even argue with you. Rome did not stop the war with the Germanic tribes until its collapse. In the end, they generally had a focal character flashing up with another rebellion of the Germanic tribes.
      2. zavesa01
        zavesa01 18 January 2014 22: 01
        +1
        The Macedonian gaitars did not have a saddle and stirrups, unlike the Scythian cataphracts, respectively, there is no fixation on the horse. The same is with protection. Accordingly, they lost on all fronts.
        From the memoirs “... among the Sarmatians, more than one leader’s voice matters: they all incite each other. Sarmatians rarely appeared in front of enemies on foot. They were always on horseback. When they appear on horseback, it is unlikely that any system can oppose them ”(Cornelius Tacitus)
        And now about the armor. Pausanias writes: "Each of them has many horses, they use these horses not only for war. After collecting their hooves, they clean them and, cutting them into pieces, make of them plates that look like dragon scales. Having pierced them and tied them with the veins of horses and bull , they use these shells, no less beautiful than the Hellenic ones, and no less durable; they withstand blows from swords and spears well in hand-to-hand combat. " (try to chop a horse's hoof with an ax, and its weight cannot be compared with iron)

        Of great interest is the commentary of Strabo regarding the influence of Greek and Roman civilizations on the Sarmatian nomads (whom he calls Scythians). “In our view,” he wrote, “the Scythians are the most just and well-behaved of all people living on earth. They are also more restrained in their needs and less dependent on each other than we are. And yet, our way of life has corrupted almost all nations, revealing to them luxury and sensual pleasures, as well as low tricks that serve the satisfaction of these vices and lead to countless manifestations of greed. ” Flavius ​​Aetius, Roman commander, put the Scythian bow into service in the Roman army.
        For almost 600 years, the Sarmatians have been horrified by the ancient world until they were replaced by the Huns who for some reason are considered almost Mongols or immigrants from northern China. However, here is what Prisk writes, the ambassador to the Hunish king Attila calling them Scythians and “royal Scythians”: “a huge village built of logs and well-planed boards, decorated with towers and surrounded by a fence, inside which there were many buildings, some of which were beautifully made carved planks. Each of those present, according to Scythian courtesy, stood up and handed us the full goblet, then, hugging and kissing the drinker, took the goblet back, the ambassadors were offered honey instead of wine, and a barley drink as a guide emy barbaric "Camos" "Description of the camp of nomads is not it?
        1. zvereok
          zvereok 18 January 2014 22: 36
          0
          Quote: zavesa01
          from cataphractic Scythians


          In fact, the Scythians did not have stirrups and saddles. The main tactic was to shoot at the enemy with bows. Scythian cataphracts are protected by armor, rather from arrows. So the Sarmatians have already appeared stirrups.
          1. zavesa01
            zavesa01 18 January 2014 23: 30
            0
            Many historians believe that we are obliged to SKIFAM by the invention of the saddle, but the stirrup is SRMAT. The shelling of the enemy was mainly used by the Parthian cavalry. Antiochus had two types of cavalry, lightly bombarding the enemy with arrows, and the Scythian bow was distinguished by enormous penetration (at that time) and heavy, in particular cataphracts, whose main weapon was a spear 4-4.5 meters long that they tied to the saddle (later the West European knights did it ) Later, Rome created something similar (Kalibanarium), but due to its too heavy weapons and high cost it was used very rarely. Moreover, the wedge-shaped construction of heavy cavalry (used to break the phalanx) Arrian attributes to the Scythians. Later, such a construction was adopted by Phillip II. The number of guitars in Macedon ranged from 1800 to 2500 people.
            1. zvereok
              zvereok 18 January 2014 23: 48
              +1
              Cataphracts were of two types:

              - The Scythians have archers, the tactic is precisely shelling the troops and avoiding the "general battle" until the enemy exhausts his strength.
              - What you described is with the Sarmatians, for the simple reason that without a stirrup, ram ramming is not effective.

              By the way, one of the generals of the cataphracts, Darius was thrown out of the saddle, which greatly perplexed the Macedonians. In the sense of how to solve it, his whole body was protected. They killed him as a result of a blow to the viewing slot of the helmet, well, not the point. It was just that moment that described the tactics of the Persian Cataphracts - to drive up, take a few volleys and ride off, without suffering any damage due to the armor. The Scythians had the same tactics.
          2. Penzuck
            Penzuck 20 January 2014 10: 04
            0
            I don’t remember exactly, Parthia is a Hellenistic state, in which the Scythian dynasty took power from the Greeks, hence the tactics of withdrawing the enemy to their wilderness, false retreat and ambush. In the battle against Crassus (the Roman consul, as well as Ptolemy? And Caesar, they seized power in Rome), an equestrian army of the Parthians accompanied the convoy of camels, where the arrows were.

            Regarding cataphracts: the word is IMHO Greek; the essence is a warrior chained in iron with a horse. (like a knight). And by whom they just did not apply. Beginning with the Macedonian kings, hence the cataphracts were in all armies of the Hellenistic states.
    2. Cristall
      Cristall 18 January 2014 21: 24
      +1
      it is difficult to defeat the one who does not accept the battle, but lures into a waterless area and disturbs guerrilla tactics. Scythians used scorched earth tactics (non-acceptance of the battle and not leaving resources on the ground to the enemy)
      1. zavesa01
        zavesa01 18 January 2014 22: 46
        0
        In war as in war.
  15. bandabas
    bandabas 18 January 2014 16: 45
    +2
    And then the Romans came. And they made the heirs of Alexander.
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 18 January 2014 17: 22
      0
      Quote: bandabas
      And then the Romans came. And they made the heirs of Alexander.


      Well, the principle of "divide et impera" then helped the Romans a lot.
  16. zvereok
    zvereok 18 January 2014 17: 14
    +1
    Alexander planned a second trip to India, circling Africa on ships, for this he created a large fleet. I remember it was somehow connected with his commander Crater, but I can’t remember how. It’s a pity that the son of Alexander did not become what Alexander himself became for Philip. In this case, the planet would be completely different. The snobby Rome most likely would not become a dominant and perhaps the world would be a little better.

    As for the defeat of Darius, the backbone of his troops also consisted of the Greek Hoplites, who fought quite worthy.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 20: 34
      +2
      Cassander killed the son of Alexander, by the way the son of Antipater, the commander Alexander. Rome became swaggering after August, and before that it was a militant peasant Republic defeating the merchant Carthage.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 18 January 2014 20: 46
        +2
        Cassander killed the son of Alexander, by the way the son of Antipater, the commander Alexander.


        I say, it’s a pity that I have not come of age. There, by the way, the Olympics also had a hand in her woman’s hand, and as a result, the dynasty broke off.

        By the way, Pyrrhus, the lord of Epirus, had Rome at that time in all the cracks. With support in Hellas, he would grind the peasant republic.

        Quote: Victor Wolz
        Rome became swaggering after August, and before that it was a militant peasant Republic defeating the merchant Carthage.


        Rome has always been "only for itself", as, in principle, the United States is now.
        1. zavesa01
          zavesa01 18 January 2014 22: 53
          +1
          Rome won its power by the blood of its sons, unlike pin ... c. (The collapse of the empire is a different story.)
          1. zvereok
            zvereok 18 January 2014 23: 03
            +1
            Quote: zavesa01
            Rome won its power by the blood of its sons, unlike pin ... c. (The collapse of the empire is a different story.)


            Well, Pin_do_s_am, there are also many places where blood was bled and they have yet to confirm the "label", in my humble understanding of the United States, without a printing press - at best, a third world country, at worst, will fall apart. The first option, by the way, will help them achieve true power.
            1. zavesa01
              zavesa01 18 January 2014 23: 40
              +3
              That's just the military campaigns of the EMPIRE of Rome went down in history as brilliantly carried out, and ALL military campaigns of the "empire" of the United States failed.
              The conclusion is obvious: the power of Rome has been conquered, and the "power" of the United States has been bought.
      2. GREAT RUSSIA
        GREAT RUSSIA 19 January 2014 22: 40
        +1
        Quote: Victor Wolz
        Cassander killed the son of Alexander, by the way the son of Antipater, the commander Alexander. Rome became swaggering after August, and before that it was a militant peasant Republic defeating the merchant Carthage.

        Rome became snobby during the late Empire, otherwise you will offend Trajan, Anthony Pius, Vespassian and Titus Flavius, Constantine. And these emperors made a huge contribution to the development of the empire, and the latter (Constantine) made Christianity the state religion and thus predetermined world history.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 22: 55
    0
    Maybe, but Rome gave us the concept of EMPIRE, just thank him for that))
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 18 January 2014 23: 00
      +1
      Rome Did not give the world the concept of "Empire", before Rome there were already Empires.
      1. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 18 January 2014 23: 24
        +1
        It was he who gave this Latin word meaning power, but not just power, but military power over the military in the first place. And before that, even the state of Sasha of Macedon was called a power or kingdom. This is a purely Roman theme, and Jupiter forbid you, do not confuse tyranny and dictatorship.
        1. zvereok
          zvereok 18 January 2014 23: 52
          0
          Quote: Victor Wolz
          do not confuse tyranny and dictatorship.


          Those. Persian empire, empire wasn’t? And is China not an empire?
          1. Victor Wolz
            Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 00: 05
            0
            They cannot be empires because it is the military power entrusted to the Dictator or Roman commander for the time of the warrior. If you have Chinese emperors and Persian kings rule the legions of Rome then yes)))
            1. Salamander
              Salamander 22 January 2014 21: 48
              0
              As for the Persians, I agree, but what then to call Chinese ... uh ... pahana? request
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. GREAT RUSSIA
      GREAT RUSSIA 19 January 2014 22: 34
      +3
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      Maybe, but Rome gave us the concept of EMPIRE, just thank him for that))

      The Romans gave the world:
      Scissors, reinforced concrete, modern legal methods (Roman law), the Latin alphabet, civilization throughout the Western world, it was thanks to them that the lands of Britain, France and Spain became the center of future Western civilization.
      A modern army divided into divisions: a centuria-cohort-legion. The Greeks had a disciplined army, and the Romans brought the system to perfection.
      1. Victor Wolz
        Victor Wolz 20 January 2014 18: 20
        0
        Of course, this too, although it’s not exactly known, the Romans invented either the Etruscans and Greeks with the Celts)))
        1. Salamander
          Salamander 22 January 2014 21: 53
          0
          They appeared separately, and the Romans all gathered together, in one iron fist angry
      2. The comment was deleted.
  18. zavesa01
    zavesa01 19 January 2014 00: 05
    0
    Quote: Victor Wolz
    Rome gave us the concept of EMPIRE just for that, thanks to him

    But what about the Assyrian Empire. It was there that the cavalry and "engineering" troops began.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 00: 09
      0
      Do not confuse the concept you do not call Obama king, padishah or general secretary.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  19. zvereok
    zvereok 19 January 2014 00: 14
    0
    Quote: Victor Wolz
    Do not confuse the concept you do not call Obama king, padishah or general secretary.


    In general, a satellite in English will be satellite, which does not change its essence.

    You said: "Maybe, but Rome gave us the concept of EMPIRE only for that thanks to him))" It is the "Concept", not the word or the spelling of this word.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 00: 53
      0
      At first there was a word, and the word was empire and the word was imperium, and then the concept expanded to definitions of the meaning of the existence of states))
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 19 January 2014 00: 57
        +1
        Quote: Victor Wolz
        At first there was a word, and the word was empire and the word was imperium, and then the concept expanded to definitions of the meaning of the existence of states))


        In the beginning, because of the woman you’ll give me a muzzle, and then to your wife you can write in colorful words how you defended the schoolgirl))). Okay, it's time for me to sleep. It was nice to talk on an interesting topic))).
        1. Victor Wolz
          Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 01: 08
          0
          Thanks, me too.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  20. zavesa01
    zavesa01 19 January 2014 00: 15
    0
    Quote: Victor Wolz
    They cannot be empires

    I DO NOT like climbing a wiki, but from there: Signs of an empire
    1 presence of colonies;
    2 the presence of a strong army and police;
    3 large foreign policy influence;
    4 powerful state idea (religion, ideology);
    5 tough, usually sole, power;
    6 high loyalty of the population;
    7 an active foreign policy aimed at expansion, the pursuit of regional or world domination;
    And why China and the Persians are not empires?
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 00: 42
      0
      These are the definitions of the 20th century. I’m talking about empire as a military authority. By the way, Peter very much understood that he, in addition to the tsar (hereditary power), was still there to the commanders in various ranks and in the navy and in the army as he progressed. And in China, the son of heaven ruled, and in Persia the king of kings, their power was by right of birth i.e. monarchy.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 19 January 2014 00: 53
        0
        In my opinion you are wrong. Darius personally took part in the battle with Alexander, led him and failed him.

        As for the ranks, do you imagine that the military serves, serves and suddenly becomes the supreme commander?

        "King of Kings
        son of heaven "

        By the way, try to find the full title of Peter, there will also be many "Kings and Princes"

        I found it:

        Title of Tsar Peter I Alekseevich:
        By the grace of God, We, the most enlightened and sovereign Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Pyotr Alekseevich, All Great and Small and White of Russia Autocrat of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Siberia, Sovereign of Pskov and Great Knyaz , Ugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and other Sovereign and Grand Prince of Novgorod the Nizov lands, Chernihiv, Ryazan, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Beloozersky, Udora, Obdorsky, Kondi, and all the Northern countries Lord and Go Sovereign of Iversky lands, Kartalin and Georgian Kings, and Kabardian lands, Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and many other states and lands, eastern and western and northern, stepfather and grandfather, and heir, and Sovereign, and Possessor.

        Here is another figure of the "word" that was in the beginning, not the deed:

        Joshua Abraham Norton (born Joshua Abraham Norton; previous 1819 - January 8, 1880) is a resident of the United States who proclaimed himself the Emperor of the United States in 1859 and assumes the title of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the United States
        1. Victor Wolz
          Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 01: 03
          0
          It’s not that, you list me hereditary titles, but I spoke about his ranks in the Russian army, the scorer there, captain, these ranks and his connection with the Army make him emperor. Yes, all the Romanovs then served in the guard or were listed here where the connection with ancient Rome !!!
          1. Victor Wolz
            Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 01: 06
            0
            quote: As for the ranks, do you imagine that the military serves, serves and suddenly becomes the supreme commander? Each of my soldiers in his satchel wears a marshal's baton - Napoleon)))
            1. zvereok
              zvereok 19 January 2014 01: 33
              0
              All the same, "Marshal", not the Imperial regalia.
              1. Victor Wolz
                Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 02: 16
                0
                Jean Batist Jules Bernadotte (fr. Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte, later Karl XIV Johan, Swede Karl XIV Johan; January 26, 1763, Poe, Gascony, France - March 8, 1844, Stockholm) - Marshal of the Empire (fr. Maréchal d'Empire ) (1804), a participant in the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, Prince Pontecorvo (since 1806), later the king of Sweden and Norway (since 1818), the founder of the Bernadotte dynasty. And Joachim Murat (March 25, 1767 - October 13, 1815) - Napoleonic Marshal, Grand Duke of Berg in 1806-1808, king of the Kingdom of Naples in 1808-1815.))) But they were all the king the emperor could only be Napoleon.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Victor Wolz
          Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 01: 13
          0
          Here is another figure of the "word" that was in the beginning, not the deed:

          Joshua Abraham Norton (born Joshua Abraham Norton; pre. 1819 - January 8, 1880) - a resident of the United States who proclaimed himself emperor of the United States in 1859 and appropriated the title of His Imperial Majesty the emperor of the United States It’s not true to name yourself and different things whether)))
        4. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  21. zvereok
    zvereok 19 January 2014 01: 23
    +1
    Lastly, refreshing in memory:
    "
    Among the great mysteries of past millennia, the history of the disappeared fleet of the Greek king remains one of the most intriguing. American archaeologists put forward their own, very bold, version that contradicts the prevailing views on the history of geographical discoveries. They claim that the fleet of Alexander the Great could reach the New World. And there is hundreds of evidence for this ...

    By the 324 year of our era, Macedonian Greece became the ruler of vast territories. Alexander's troops marched from Greece to India. For eleven years, almost the entire world known then was conquered. The details of the campaigns of Alexander the Great were thoroughly investigated and relatively well known. We are interested in the other side of the conquests of the Greek king. At one time, A. Humboldt noted that, starting from 330 BC, Alexander deliberately put his campaigns at the service of geographical discoveries and for this purpose kept a large staff of scientists. Greek science nevertheless made great progress. How little the Greeks knew before hiking about the high mountains of Armenia, about the Hindu Kush, Syr Darya and Amu Darya, about the peaks of the Himalayas and the Indus Valley. All this was revealed to the gaze of amazed Greeks only in the time of Alexander!

    At the walls of Babylon, Alexander built a huge fleet. This is what, according to Arrian, the main naval forces of the king were: "According to Ptolemy, the son of Lag, from whom I mainly draw information, the entire fleet consisted of about 2 thousand ships, including 80 thirty oarsmen and many others including horse carriers, open cargo boats and all other boats.

    To serve the soldiers, the Phoenicians, Cypriots, Carians and Egyptians were put on the ships "(that is, the best sailors of antiquity). Admiral Nearchus commanded the fleet. Admiral Nearchus's reconnaissance expeditions surveyed the coast of the Persian Gulf. Captain Bahias discovered the Bahrain Islands and named them Tilos. Androsfen. -Dhabi and reported on the pearl trade on the Arabian coast. Hieron bypassed Arabia by sea, but was forced to return prematurely, because the sailors were horrified by the endless deserts. Another expedition sailed to the region of modern South Yemen and also returned ahead of schedule due to that that people did not have enough food and, most importantly, water; the sandy shores were dead.Of course, all of Alexander's latest ventures were based not on a thirst for research, but on practical, economic and political motives: the sea communication between the new capital Babylon and Egypt was of value in many relations; in addition, new sea routes ran through areas rich in pr food and other valuable goods. In the summer of 323 BC Nearchus was going to continue his reconnaissance voyages in the ocean. But fate decided otherwise. On June 10, Alexander died unexpectedly. According to reports that have come down to us, at a farewell feast arranged in honor of Nearchus and his companions, the king contracted some mysterious deadly disease. A few days later, the huge fleet disappeared.

    Where did the Greek admiral Nearchus take him? According to Arrian, shortly before his death, Alexander wanted, "leaving Persia, to bypass most of Arabia, the country of the Ethiopians, as well as Libya and Numidia on the other side of the Atlas to Hades, to go into our sea and, having subjugated Libya and Carthage, to receive the right to be called king of the whole earth. " So, the geographical knowledge of the Greeks of those times was not so poor, since they knew that Africa could be bypassed by sea? Maybe they knew a lot more than we suspect. Alexander also dreamed of seizing lands west of Greece. He also thought about further progress eastward by sea. Perhaps, carrying out the last, unknown to us, the will of the king, Nearchus led the fleet in the eastern direction?
    "
  22. Valentine77 64
    Valentine77 64 19 January 2014 09: 33
    -2
    Macedonian. And he got it in the gophers and did not climb to the north. Although oh how I wanted
    1. Penzuck
      Penzuck 20 January 2014 10: 18
      0
      In vain did they offend a man, the Central Asians during (the ancestors of the Uzbek Tajiks, etc.) fought in the mountains, partisan! On their account: several garrisons of the Macedonians, detached from the main forces of the detachments, and Sashka’s troops have been vegetating there for more than seven years!
  23. de bouillon
    de bouillon 19 January 2014 14: 17
    +1
    Quote: ver_
    Just do not need this .... Caesar and Genghis Khan are one and the same person - Yuri Georgy Dolgoruky - the uncle of Alexander Nevsky = Alexander of Macedon ...



    nothing that divides them for 1000 years?

    calm down.
    1. i.xxx-1971
      i.xxx-1971 20 January 2014 16: 15
      0
      Have you determined their age with a chronometer?
  24. de bouillon
    de bouillon 19 January 2014 14: 21
    +1
    Quote: xetai9977
    Alexander was and is my idol. For his short life, he literally shook off a sleepy story. It is a pity that such a PERSON was corrupted in the film of the same name, portraying him as a neurotic and blue. But other personalities in history, such as Caesar and Genghis Khan sincerely admired Alexander the Great.


    Well, we don’t know the whole truth, but in ancient Greece homosexuality was quite the norm. Only the island of lesbos ...

    probably everything is now in the opposite and is returning to europe
  25. de bouillon
    de bouillon 19 January 2014 14: 24
    +1
    Quote: Valentine77 64
    Macedonian. And he got it in the gophers and did not climb to the north. Although oh how I wanted


    received from the Afghans, but what did he need there in the north ??

    When there is Persia, Babylon and Egypt

    the lands are rich and healed. India is generally a diamond of the ancient world: all kinds of spices and nishtyaki ..

    By the way, in Tajikistan there still remains some genetic trace of his wars.
    followed this and. The usual conquest to the developed lands of the ancient world with the aim of enrichment.
  26. GREAT RUSSIA
    GREAT RUSSIA 19 January 2014 15: 36
    +1
    No matter how they talked about Alexander, one should understand that he is a great commander. His campaigns, his methods, his strategy must be studied, as are Hannibal, Caesar, Pompey, Alexander Nevsky, Saladin, Suvorov, Ushakov, Harradin Barbarossa, Kutuzov, Napoleon, Nelson , Zhukova. All of them need to be studied.
  27. Alexandr0id
    Alexandr0id 19 January 2014 15: 58
    +1
    ancient greece and macedonia are the same countries of the so-called. ancient east like egypt or persia. all these labels "west" and "east" appeared much later. Carthaginians and Romans, Greeks and Lydians, Hittites and Jews belonged to the same civilization.
    Alexander made great conquests, but in fact they were limited only to the borders of the Persian empire, for the bulk of the population of the Achaemenid power, little happened at all - one foreign power was replaced by another of the same. in this regard, the Persian conquests of the 6th century BC seem to be much more significant, although perfect for a longer period, the Persians managed to collect all these countries - mussel and Babylon, Lydia and Egypt, etc., etc., which was incomparably more difficult.
    1. Sour
      Sour 19 January 2014 21: 16
      0
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      the Persians managed to collect all these countries - mussel and Babylon, Lydia and Egypt, etc., etc., which was incomparably more difficult.

      Quite a controversial point of view, on two points.
      1) I would not call the Achaemenid empire a very united state. More or less unified, it was only under Darius 1, but he also failed to achieve uniformity of power.
      2) I would not say that it was more difficult for the Persians to conquer the countries of the East than the Greco-Macedonians. If only because it was not one military campaign, but several consecutive wars. By that time, Egypt had long passed the peak of its power, and Babylon was also not in its prime.
      The worst Persians fought with the Central Asian nomads. But Alexander was not very successful there either. Both those and others failed to conquer Scythia.
      In general, the history of the Achaemenids is a constant struggle against separatism and palace conspiracies.
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      ancient Greece and Macedonia - the same countries of the so-called ancient east like egypt or persia.

      And here I would not put an equal sign. Even Greece (classical, not Mycenaean) and Macedonia are not completely identical societies, with different economic foundations and different mentality. I cannot recognize polis democracy and aristocratic monarchy as a single civilization. No wonder that after the death of Alexander, immediately Hellas fell away. This symbiosis rested only on military force.
      And to declare Hellas and then Egypt as one civilization is too bold. Nothing at all common — neither in art, nor in economics, nor in the structure of society, nor in traditions.
      However, the east was also heterogeneous. For example, Persia and Phenicia are even less alike than Greece and Macedonia.
    2. GREAT RUSSIA
      GREAT RUSSIA 19 January 2014 22: 18
      -1
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      ancient Greece and Macedonia - the same countries of the so-called ancient east like egypt or persia.

      I would not say so, there are differences in everything, in the army, culture, architecture.
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      Alexander made great conquests, but in fact they were limited only to the borders of the Persian empire

      He would expand the earth further. but there are a few problems.
      First, he met with serious and very powerful resistance from the tribes of the steppes and Indian states.
      The second, his soldiers rebelled, they fought for more than 10 years and they wanted to return home. Alexander was going to capture the Mediterranean coast of Africa, but he died.
      The Achaemenid empire was not united, a single byd only during the time of Cyrus II, Darius I and Xerxes. Further the power of the center was limited to the nearest provinces from Persepolis (From Babylon to Bactria, from Media to India). However, other lands were far from the center (Persepolis) and even despite the road and the longest canal at that time (between modern Iraq and Iran), all this did not help to quickly provide communication between regions and cities. Egypt, Libya, Asia Minor, Western Asia and the South Caucasus were virtually independent from the center.
  28. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 19 January 2014 18: 17
    +1
    Alexander was a talented commander and apparently not standard for many, although a strong army is partly due to his father Philip and his acquaintance with the military art of the Theban commander Epaminondas, who broke the phalanx of the Spartans with his new oblique order.
  29. GREAT RUSSIA
    GREAT RUSSIA 19 January 2014 22: 26
    0
    hypaspists - argyraspids - "silver
    Here the imprint is not “silver shields” but “silver shields.” The war of the silver shield, this unit later appeared in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (Seleucid Empire, from Seleucus-commander Alexander). These units were the elite of the Greco-Bactrians until the destruction of the empire by the Egyptians, Parthians ( Arkashid dynasty, from Arshak, in a word, another Persian empire) and the Romans (then the republic).
  30. Irokez
    Irokez 19 January 2014 23: 57
    +1
    Please clarify. Nowadays, the Macedonians speak a dialect of Slavic or Russian language similar to Ukrainian or Serbian, and it turns out that they are Slavs. But then who is Alexander of Macedon, isn't he from the Slavs?
  31. Yarik
    Yarik 20 January 2014 06: 47
    -3
    ver_ Yesterday, 12:25 ↑
    Bullshit ... Alexander the Great = Alexander Nevsky ... The whole history of Western countries is licked from the history of Russia ... Guy Julius Caesar = Yuri (name received at birth, George - name received at baptism) Dolgoruky (his hands reached Italy) = Saint George = George the Victorious = Chingiz Khan (Caesar Khan) = Emperor ..., his brother John Caliph = Ivan Kalita = Yaroslav Vsevolodovich = Khan Father = Khan Batya = Khan Batuy - father of Alexander Nevsky .... Founded the Vatican in the second campaign to Europe (His brother Yuri died of a wound received on the river Vozha ...) ... He called to his son Alexander, where he ruled Crete (and is buried there ...) ....


    You are apparently raving. Absurdity. belay
    1. i.xxx-1971
      i.xxx-1971 20 January 2014 16: 12
      -1
      There is at least logic in this absurdity. The ability to make logical inferences and have their own point of view is available to people with an inquiring mind, free from ossified and tired dogmas. Your mental capacity seems to be limited by the ability to open the refrigerator. For example: how many copies have been broken in the debate that there are no traces of the "Golden Horde", archaeologists cannot find anything, respectively, someone else tormented the ancestors; they cannot find anything on the Kulikovo field, so there was no battle there; The Mongols, a priori, could not create an army of many thousands - both themselves and their cattle would have died of hunger, and even in Russia, and even in winter! And all the same, some clever person will write: Tatar-Mongols ... Hurray! 250 years of us ... Hurray!
      And here is Alexander the Great. He lived before historical materialism. And did he live at all, but you need to write an article (or even a book). Where to get knowledge? Garbage war, the main thing is maneuver.
  32. Prometey
    Prometey 20 January 2014 08: 35
    -1
    A beautiful fairy tale, nothing more. Sasha the Macedonian would sooner have lost his army on the march from desertion, dysentery and other "delights" than he would have made it to India.
  33. ed65b
    ed65b 20 January 2014 09: 48
    +1
    When the Macedonian went to Samarkand there was an interesting moment. there is a place called "Iron Gate", a very narrow road squeezed by rocks. No more than 15-20 people can be placed in a row, which was guarded by the enemy's guard and could defend with small forces for an arbitrarily long time. Aleksndr, realizing the prospect of the option, sent in front of him a small caravan of liquor, the crew was right, the guard confiscated the wine and drank himself to death, after which he was successfully killed and thus the way to the Kitab pass was opened.
  34. i.xxx-1971
    i.xxx-1971 20 January 2014 15: 43
    0
    Delirium sucked from the finger. I was especially pleased: "before the battle, I allowed the soldiers to write letters home." Letters, presumably, were dictated by the illiterate Macedonian shepherds to Jimmy the mnemonic in his ear, and he brought them to Macedonia by evening horse. In general, when some academician of academic sciences or a very clever bored householder writes about the history of ancient times, desperate melancholy visits me.
    1. Victor Wolz
      Victor Wolz 20 January 2014 18: 23
      0
      Why such disbelief in civilization? You probably imagine the life of the ancients as the life of homeless people?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  35. Plamya77
    Plamya77 7 June 2014 23: 03
    0
    Regarding the theories of Fomenko-Nosovsky and others like them, it is EXTREMELY unprofitable for today's "scientists" to admit it, as well as their incompetence. The West will be doused with shit and yapped. Not to admit it means to be like those lickers of Western ass.
  36. Plamya77
    Plamya77 7 June 2014 23: 10
    -1
    By the way, wonderful and "invincible" Alexander snatched very good people from the Scythians - the so-called "Battle of Yaxart". And do not believe the officialdom. Read the description between the lines.
    Although, of course, he was a noble commander. Yes, he wasn’t very wise and always superior to the enemy in number and quality. And he personally dared to recklessness. But he also had very worthy opponents — the same Spitamen, for example. And Spitamen wanted to sneeze to all Macedonian special forces, he drove them as he wanted, courageous husbands and the letter p ...