Why do you disagree with my claim, that Alexander the Great was far better than the Arab Caliphates?
I what?
Why do you disagree with my claim, that Alexander the Great was far better than the Arab Caliphates?
I thought, that your cartoons was a reply to my post about Alexander the Great. I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
William Henry Harrison. He was dead after a month in office.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
I thought, that your cartoons was a reply to my post about Alexander the Great. I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
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.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.
Only when Azadi is involved, though.
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.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.
Only when Azadi is involved, though.
My controversial opinion: The Mongols weren't that bad, outside of Persia.
The fact that you can type that doesn't mean that's what would have happened.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.
My controversial opinion: The Mongols weren't that bad, outside of Persia.
Why not?The fact that you can type that doesn't mean that's what would have happened.
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?
You are wrong.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 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.Alexander respected Persian civilization and married Roxana, a beautiful Afghan girl. The Macedonian generals disliked Alexander's positive view of Persian civilization.
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.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.
Her and what army, exactly?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.
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.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?
Do Westerners also hate India?The average Westerner loves Alexander and maligns any civilization east of the Bosphorus and west of the Himalayas. Especially if they happen to go to war with Greeks.
I don't think it comes up very often in conversation.
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.
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.