Your reply ridiculously too long, and it suffers frequent illogic and from numerous untruths and partial truths. I do not intend to humor you with any more replies of my own after this. Hey, I caught the Wiki article on “Religious exclusivism”. How about not passing off someone else's work as your own? For your information none of those you name were executed, and as far as I can glean from the following source, Theophrasus was acquitted, and Stilpo may not even have been charged. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology So that leaves you with four names, and there is no reason to suppose that religious persecution was widespread on the basis of so small a number. Furthermore, all of those banished were so esteemed during their lives, exile or no exile, that their careers remain evidence of my central contention that freedom of thought was prevalent. Even Socrates remained at large to say as he pleased for decades after issue of Diopathes' decree, which was used as an arbitrary political weapon rather than as a means of enforcing religious orthodoxy. Otherwise the Academy and the Lycaeum would have been closed down. The case of Theodorus of Cyrene is instructive; (from Smith): So: Aristotle was not the only Man of Ideas who attained intimate favor with royalty, This one, Theodorus, even had the epithet “Atheist” attached to his name, yet was hired by a monarch whose legitimacy depended on personal divinity. I would say helps clinch the argument that ancient Greek culture was generally permissive in the realm of The Idea. So as I said the Persians and the Greeks were alike in having state-supported religions. Also, I think it is likely that Zoroastrians benefited from non-Zoroastrian tribute. Persian garrisons and administrators were presume spread throughout the empire, and their priests and temples needed to be paid for. I did not say anything about the origin of the claim, and do not need to source something you agree with. None of this contradicts anything I have said. A pharaoh in Egypt ca. 320BCE? I don't think so- Egypt was conquered by Cambyses two centuries earlier, and the native pharaoh deposed and killed. Thereafter it was a Satrap. None of this contradicts anything I have said. No it is not. For example, Pythagoras, Euclid and Archimedes were, objectively speaking, great mathematicians. Ancient Persia produced nothing like them. Even if this is so I do not consider belief in the Devil to be a form of intellectual development. Rather, it is a form of superstition. Greek superiority in mathematics was reproduced in breadth and depth of all endeavors of human thought. It is not just the ancient Persians who were inferior to them. Relative to population all other civilizations have been the Greek's intellectual inferiors. Greek genius was so obvious that not only the Romans but also, much later, the Muslims were moved to preserve its heritage. Sadly the early Christian Church failed to carry the torch lit by the Greeks, and that must have set the intellectual development of the West back by centuries. I have done some googling on the issue, and I now accept that Cyrus' abolition of slavery IS properly sourced, although some exceptions and qualifications may not be. Regardless of the details it was an act of the highest possible ethical merit. This is a point of history which deserves to be much more prominently emphasized in Western texts. It is too bad that Cyrus' successors, including, eventually, the Macedonians, did not continue the great tradition he began. The grave immorality of the brutal treatment of the slaves is in no way reduced by the circumstances under which they became enslaved. I do not understand this recap. It is dishonest of you not to quote me in full at this point. Here is the rest of my statement: Democracy is not essential to the expansion of freedom. Cyrus' abolition of slavery was one example, and Alexander’s grant of citizenship to a conquered people and his proposed racial fusion with them are further examples. You have confused Cleitus with Attalus. Cleitus would never have contested Alexander's legitimacy, although Attalus certainly did. In those times, and for 2000 years thereafter anyone who questioned a King's legitimacy was expected to kill the king, or pay with his life Everything he did was standard operating procedure during a contested succession. Only Thebes came out in open rebellion. All Athens did was talk. Thebes had earlier broken alliance with Macedon, and its fate was normal, even deserved for the times. Alexander could not afford to chance leaving such a treacherous entity in his rear during his conquest of Asia. So what? I do not think any subject Greek state was a kingdom. (Sparta retained its independence) I believe Alexander favored oligarchy. By the time of Alexander's succession I am not sure if there were any Democracies left. All this, if true, would seem to support my suggestion that Alexander was no ememy of whatever freedloms the conquered populations enjoyed. There is no way of knowing what Alexander’s plans were at the time of his death. I doubt invading the Arabian deserts were a high priority, though. Your numerous errors are adressed above and below. The people being forced were Alexander's most intimate friends and his highest commanders. It is reasonable to infer from this and from the scope of the ceremony itself that the people from whom their brides were taken were to be integrated as equals with the new ruling class. You need to get over this fixation with freeing the slaves. The important thing is that Alexander spared the city, and spared the lives even of his political enemies within the city. Demosthenes outlived him, unmolested. As for the average subject I am confident he was in accord with the entire culture of ancient Greece in which the ideals of rule of law and dignity of the free citizens were generally accepted even if they were not always observed. I am quite sure the satrap system was retained with Macedonians intended to be in charge wherever possible. For example at the time of Alexander's death Diadoch Antigonus was a satrap in charge of most or all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) Consolidation of power and expansion of freedom are not mutually exclusive. What you are missing here is the radical nature of Alexander's commitment to fusion of the peoples. Prior to Alexander essentially ALL Greeks, including especially philosophers such as Alexanders' famous teacher Aristotle considered Persians to be genetically, hopelessly barbaric. All this, if true, would have been no reflection of the dead Alexander. It would be ridiculous to classify Alexander as either. He was a strong ruler, and strong rulers of the day had to be ruthless because they inevitably had to contend with real and potential rivals of equal ruthlessness.
I do not agree with it though. The Persian Empire that Alexander conquered was centuries before the Second Persian Empire (where your claim was true). If there was a practice akin to a god-kingship, so far as I know it started centuries later in a kingdom that was established only after Alexander was dead and the hold of his generals on the region eliminated. If Alexander proclaimed himself a demigod, he did not, so far as I can tell, get the idea from the Persians. If you have a source that suggests he did get it from them (or that they practiced it at all), I'd be legitimately curious to know. That's true that the pharaohs were no longer Egyptian after the 30th Dynasty, but Persian Emperors adopted and used the title...as did later rulers. Surely you can see that this is a cultural bias and a subjective judgment being merged. First, how comprehensive is your knowledge of Persian mathematicians for you to draw the conclusion? Second, who is the "better mathematician" is not the same as "who's most famous." The "greatest" mathematician could very well be someone who lived alone in a cave and whose work died with him, unless you define "better" in a way that negates that as an option (such as "whose work is most widely taught today in the west"). There are those who would say that Grigori Perelman is a "better" mathematician than Euler, even though Euler is unquestionably more famous. I have heard it said that Galois was the greatest mathematician of all time, but his untimely death surely limits the degree of his importance in mathematics education. Again, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity to that claim, especially since comparing two civilizations is like comparing apples and oranges. I am not sure why you don't see that. Plus, we don't have perfect records of what all other cultures were like. We have a disproportionate amount of information on the Greeks because the Romans saved so much of it. That is to some extent true, but it is also likely that the Greek proximity (even being on the Italian peninsula early on) influenced the Romans. The Romans were not known for embracing other cultures, but the pollination of Roman thought by the Greeks started so early in their history that the Romans never saw it as being as alien as they did, say, Egyptian culture. That the Roman's favored them doesn't show any sort of absolute superiority, and if the Greek civilization had arisen further away from Rome and no Italian colonies established, it's likely that Greek accomplishments would have been lost. It is undeniable that many accomplishments of the Old Persian Empire were lost to history (which is why people rely reasonably heavily on Herodotus's accounts of how they lived). It's undeniable that many Greek accomplishments were lost as well, but it seems clear that our understanding of ancient Greece is more robust than most ancient civilizations. I get that you believe that is not an accident of history and is because of their innate superiority, and while I can respect that as an opinion, and share it to some extent...I am not entirely confident that that belief on my own part isn't strongly colored by my own western cultural bias arising from the Greek role in establishing the base of western culture. I think you are mistaking Cleitus the White and Cleitus the Black. Cleitus the Black was definitely killed by a drunken Alexander, though historians vary on the chain of events. In the official history, Alexander's people recorded that Cleitus questioned his legitimacy. Others have suggested that the dispute was actually over Phillip II. In any event, the official version can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleitus_the_Black There is an interesting 17th century depiction by Daniel de Blieck: http://www.artflakes.com/en/products/alexander-slaying-cleitus Everything he did surely was wise if his goal was to ensure his own power for himself, that's true...and most men take attaining and retaining power as their highest goal. Most men of that age also were more interested in personal power than spreading freedom. My point was that he accepted the same position that his father had held, which doesn't to me indicate any particular interest in spreading freedom so much as a drive for power (that one would expect from a man of his time). I may be wrong, and will need to do more research. I do know that Aristotle divided the city states up into kingdoms, tyrannies, oligarchies and democracies, but perhaps I am mistaken in my thinking that kingdoms and tyrannies predominated at the time of Alexander. Of course, Macedonia was a kingdom (βασιλείαν/basileia) and the pledge extracted from loyal subject powers was that they would not challenge the rightful kingship of the Macedonians. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but it underscores for me the impression that Alexander was not overly concerned with expanding freedom. I do recall his accepting the mantle of Amun and proclaiming himself the new king of kings, which fit the notion that he was interested in power (or possibly "glory" if one wants to differentiate). I agree with that--that he was not an enemy of freedom (any more so than any other ruler of his age)--but it is also consistent with my view of him as more power-hungry than liberator. I think he interfered as little as possible with locals because he wanted to more on to conquering the next region. Trying to engage in social and political engineering would have taken a lot of time and energy and bred resistance. Alexander's system minimized all of that but didn't do much to spread Hellenistic culture into Asia or Africa, and didn't do much to expand freedom that I can see. To some extent true, but Alexander was sending a number of expeditions into the region and was camped out in Babylon. Certainly the later historian Arrian was clear that that was the intent:
Hold up, hold up. I'm gonna let you finish but Genghis Khan was the greatest warrior of all time! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
He got the title great during his era when the world had never seen any other conquerer like him . But as time passed by , hitler , nepolean , atul the hun , mongal empire , ottoman empire also came which were bigger and better emperors than alexander's . But the title 'the great ' passed from one generation to other .
Is Alexander truly one who we should call great? To better define great, the dictionary proves as a valued source. Great is defined as being powerful, superior in quality or character, distinguished and even aristocratic. Yes, Alexander was powerful and very distinguished and had quite a large empire. However, like every rose has its thorn so did Alexander. Would a person who is truly great force his people into war all the time for his own gain? Would a person who is truly great cause the slaughter of tens of thousands of his own men? Or would this person who is truly great murder his friends because he is a drunk with a bad temper? If this defines greatness, then Alexander would be great. Referring back to the dictionary definition of ‘great’, it is obvious that Alexander is not a great individual. Rather he was nothing but a ruthless monster striving to feed his desires to become more powerful. There is no doubt that he was truly one of the most powerful men of his time, but with power comes great responsibility; something that Alexander neglected to ever obtain. Instead of watching over his empire, he chose to go out and fight constants wars to make it larger. Alexander basically sacrificed his own men for his own translationservicesworld.com
Alexander is called Great because of what he accomplished (conquering the Persian empire), not because he was a good person.
