Controversial Historical Opinions You Have
- Thread starter EricD
- Start date
- Discussion
- Location
- A secret place
I thought, that your cartoons was a reply to my post about Alexander the Great. I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
I what?
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Also, it's not really a valid comparison, considering ol' Alex conquered all that area, then after a little while went east, conquered more area, got dysentery, died, and his whole dynasty/setup collapsed.
It'd be like comparing the Presidency of that one guy who got pneumonia and died, whose name I should remember and who fought in the battle of Tippecanoe, and FDRs.
One was a President for less than a year, so there's a gap in basically any comparison.
It'd be like comparing the Presidency of that one guy who got pneumonia and died, whose name I should remember and who fought in the battle of Tippecanoe, and FDRs.
One was a President for less than a year, so there's a gap in basically any comparison.
Mopman43
Mountain-Hermit of Nitpeak
- Location
- Vermont
William Henry Harrison. He was dead after a month in office.
- Location
- A secret place
Alexander is often unfairly maligned for his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire, while the Arab Caliphates are rarely condemned by Westerners for their conquest of the Neo-Persian (Sassanid) Empire. Alexander respected Persian civilization and married Roxana, a beautiful Afghan girl. The Macedonian generals disliked Alexander's positive view of Persian civilization.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Well, yes, I know that, or at least the facts rather than your opinions in there. But you're comparing an entire Caliphate to a single man who died young and whose Empire collapsed.
- Location
- A secret place
Had Alexander's son succeeded him, the Macedonians in Iran would likely have met the same fate as the Mongols and the Manchus in China. The Arab Caliphates brutally persecuted Zoroastrians and the Umayyad Caliphate discriminated against non-Arabs. Alexander didn't try to impose Greek religion on his Iranic subjects.
Mopman43
Mountain-Hermit of Nitpeak
- Location
- Vermont
We don't really know that, given we know little about Alexander's long term plans as ruler, and nothing about how his son would have ruled.
Alex ruled the area for, lets be extremely generous, five years. The Caliphates for 500.
There is absolutely no basis for comparison between the two.
- Location
- A secret place
My comparison is based on the fact, that Westerners often mention Alexander's crimes against Persia, while ignoring the crimes of the Arab Caliphates against the Iranic peoples. It's true, that Alexander burned down Persepolis, which destroyed the Avesta, but Alexander later became fond of Persian civilization, and he didn't try to force Greek religion on the Iranic peoples. The Avesta was recreated by the Sassanids. The Arab Caliphates almost extinguished Zoroastrianism, and even the Iranic languages were endangered by the Arab Caliphates. The crimes of the Arab caliphates are continued in modern times by Saddam and ISIS. The Arab crimes against Kurds and Persians must NEVER be forgotten, just as the Spanish crimes against the Inca and other native Americans must never be forgotten.
Last edited:
Silvrose
Connoisseur of Cuteness
- Location
- A Flyover State
- Pronouns
- He/Him/They/Them
It's impossible to compare Alexander to anyone he died. There is no extrapolation to be had, as he had not a long term plan. He might have forcibly merged the Greek and Persian cultures, he might have left them alone, he might have converted to Zoroastrianism and moved his court to Persepolis or another great Persian city. We will never know.
My controversial opinion: The Mongols weren't that bad, outside of Persia.
Only when Azadi is involved, though.
My controversial opinion: The Mongols weren't that bad, outside of Persia.
- Location
- A secret place
We know, that Alexander admired Persian civilization and didn't try to impose Greek religion on the Iranic peoples. In addition, I'm speaking about a scenario, in which Roxana manages to purge the Macedonian generals and rule as regent for her son with Alexander. Ptolemy and Seleucus, who were more pro-Alexander than many other Macedonian generals, might have been given parts of Alexander's empire. Ptolemy would have received Egypt and Israel as in OTL and Seleucus would have received Syria and Anatolia. Roxana would have kept all Alexander's lands east of the Euphrates. Alexander's half-brother Philip Arrhidaeus would have received Macedonia and Greece.
Mopman43
Mountain-Hermit of Nitpeak
- Location
- Vermont
The fact that you can type that doesn't mean that's what would have happened.
ExNihilo
SPACE!
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Relatively oppressive rule in China, depopulating Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a recognizable flattening of the world population curve make me disagree.
- Location
- A secret place
Why not?
Because there's nothing to suggest that it ever might have happened, other than you writing it down as some sort of strange Persian fix-fic?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
You are wrong.
Alexander is frequently lauded by Westerners for his conquest of the Achaemenid Empire. Westerners usually don't give a shit about the Arabs conquering the Sassanids, but they are often very very negative about the large Arab conquests of former Byzantine and Roman territories further west.
Alexander ruled Persia purely by right of conquest, and there is no sign that the Persians loved him back. Just because you put on the clothes of your conquered enemy and take some of their women and/or eunuchs into your harem doesn't mean that you've respected their culture more than you could have, by, y'know, not invading them.
Westerners mostly ignore Alexander's crimes against Persia too, actually. Like, you really do not have an accurate picture of what the average, collective whole of Western thought is on a lot of issues.
Her and what army, exactly?
- Location
- A secret place
I have never claimed, that Alexander conquering Persia was a good thing, or that the Persians loved Alexander. What I said is, that Alexander was far better than the Arab Caliphates, and that if Alexander or his dynasty had continued ruling Iran, the Macedonians in Iran would likely have assimilated to the native Iranic population, similar to how the Mongol and Manchu dynasties in China assimilated to the Chinese, and to how the Visigoths in Spain assimilated to the native Spaniards.
I have the impression, that Western leftists like the Arab Caliphates, and ignore their massive crimes against Zoroastrians, while no Western leftists ignore the crimes of the Spanish conquistadors against the Incas and other native Americans.
Do Westerners also hate India?
Last edited:
Mopman43
Mountain-Hermit of Nitpeak
- Location
- Vermont
I don't think it comes up very often in conversation.
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
As opposed to what? Cyrus conquered the Persian Empire by right of conquest. Alexander didn't "put on the clothes of his conquered enemy", he forced Macedonians to make Persian marriages, married a Persian, had a half-persian son, and intentionally attempted to create a Perso-Macedonian empire. His efforts were so reviled that almost every single marriage was repudiated by his officers after his death except for that of Seleukos Nikator. What was the Persian Empire? It was not a modern nation state that was conquered and subjugated but a massive web of tributaries and satrapies that folded rapidly after Alexander defeated them in a few battles, because that was the only way to hold together such a massive country. To be sure, Alexander sacked Persepolis, which was a travesty, but this was hardly a special occurrence in the ancient world, and one the Persians visited on several Greek cities.
It was the Diadokhi, not Alexander, who forced an explicitly Greek supremacist culture on the east and barred Persians from higher administration, and even then in many cases they were fundamentally reliant on local satraps working in tandem with Greek governors to control the far-flung regions.
For several years after Alexander's death Roxana and Alexander IV had the support of significant portions of the army, including the regent. If Alexander had died later there is no evidence he would not have been able to create a stable dynastic line. Indeed, it was not until his wife and son were killed by Cassander Antipatrid that it was truly abandoned as a possibility, after the defeat of a number of the Legitimists who had fought for the continuation of the Argead line.
Last edited:
Reveen
Castro-Trudeauist
Frankly, religitating ancient world conflicts in the context of the western valorization of the Greeks like this is totally useless if not outright harmful because you're basically just tacitly accepting the premise of Greeks being representative of the European west vs the dirty Easterners as legitimate.
It's not. Westerners latching onto the Greeks as being the forebears of western (aka white) civilisation is bullshit and is textbook cultural appropriation for political propaganda.
We need to take the Greeks and Vikings away from the Nazis. Not disprove why they were actually bad.
'Westerners' (as in what we're actually talking about, reactionaries jacking off the greeks) hate all non-white people. Including you.
It's not. Westerners latching onto the Greeks as being the forebears of western (aka white) civilisation is bullshit and is textbook cultural appropriation for political propaganda.
We need to take the Greeks and Vikings away from the Nazis. Not disprove why they were actually bad.
'Westerners' (as in what we're actually talking about, reactionaries jacking off the greeks) hate all non-white people. Including you.
Last edited:
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
Yes, I would agree. I would also add that the caricature of the Persian Empire as a multicultural modern empire is also foolish. These were ultimately ancient states with their own realities and cultures. The Persian Empire was an empire; it conquered and sacked and forced tribute from its subjects. It had qualities that we might admire, such as its relative tolerance and lack of famous brutality in comparison, to say, the Assyrians (despite the uniquely cruel individual tortures the Persians sometimes devised), but it was still ultimately a massive extractive state built on military coercion of its subjects. The Greeks also have qualities we might admire; if not the Spartans then the Athenians we could appreciate for their relatively equitable division of wealth among citizens and their commitment to universal male citizen suffrage in the 4th century BCE. But they were also a slave economy that treated women incredibly poorly even by the normal standards of classical Greek misogyny.
So having a moral argument about whether Alexander was right to conquer the Persian Empire seems deeply pointless. By the standards of his time Alexander tried exceedingly hard to be a ruler integrating with the former empire's laws. He also sacked many cities with brutality, was a megalomaniac who murdered comrades in drunken rages and executed loyal soldiers, and brooked no disagreement to his rule, even developing notions of divine birth as he tore his way through Persia. Ancient history defies these easy descriptions, and even when we have actors we have be sympathetic with (democracies versus oligarchies and tyrannies), the picture is never so simple. I have always preferred democracy in the polis, and the equity it promoted when it matured, but I have also never had any ideas that it was an especially relevant moral model for today, and the solidarity of the polis was built on the blood of their neighbors.
Last edited: