Alexander of Macedonia vs Aryo-Barzan the Satrap

[Left Now]

What do you think about these men of history and ancient ages?The Great King of Macedonia and Greece and the legendary Commander of Persian Empire.

Alexander:I respect him as a great King and Commander who ruled all over Persian Empire territory and India and Macedonia while he was young,but i hate him because he only tried to save his throne with killing innocent people and purging cities for wealth and territory.I only wish Aryo-Barzan could defeat him while he was in the Persian Gates Battle.

Aryo-Barzan:I respect him as a real patriot and a real legendary commander and general,who didn't accept to withdraw and let his people to die,however he failed at last because of a betrayal,and Macedonian soldiers killed him while he was traveling to Persepolis to defend that place.

[STEALTHy]

To be honest I believe Alexander didn't do all of what he did for just wealth and territory. In my opinion he did it for just glory. However just about about everyone he conquered respected him in a way. The Egyptians even made him Pharaoh at the time. His tactics and strategies were perfect, up until India he was never defeated in battle. If Alexanders empire was to have lasted beyond his death and if he named a successor history would be very different. Anyway that's my two cents I like Alexander better.

[Left Now]

But during his reign,he didn't do anything to rebuild what he destroyed and also killing innocent people won't bring glory for a man.Chivalry,kindness,knowing arts of war and good-will were the marks of a glorious man in those ages,but from all of them,he just knew the arts of war.

He wasn't chivalrous because he purged a whole city while the people in that settlement were completely unarmed and surrenderd.

[Azunite]

What do you think about these men of history and ancient ages?The Great King of Macedonia and Greece and the legendary Commander of Persian Empire.

Alexander:I respect him as a great King and Commander who ruled all over Persian Empire territory and India and Macedonia while he was young,but i hate him because he only tried to save his throne with killing innocent people and purging cities for wealth and territory.I only wish Aryo-Barzan could defeat him while he was in the Persian Gates Battle.

Aryo-Barzan:I respect him as a real patriot and a real legendary commander and general,who didn't accept to withdraw and let his people to die,however he failed at last because of a betrayal,and Macedonian soldiers killed him while he was traveling to Persepolis to defend that place.



Well I am a fan of Alexander. I think we all agree on his genius and how he was a pure mastermind in terms of warfare and leadership and personal bravery in battle as well.

His motivation wasn't probably making everywhere rich, true. He did this too for personal glory, but we cannot oversee the fact that he did change a lot of things. Not maybe in central Persia or in India, but he changed the culture and ways of Middle East and Egypt completely.

As for Aryo-Barzan, I must admit I've never heard of him before. I thought he simply stormed the capital after Gaugamela. But seeing that even his King fled and most of the generals betrayed him and started serving under Alexander's rule, he must have been very brave and loyal to make a last stand. I also see that he inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, while Alexander's army was more than two times the size of his army.

I think we can see here how there aren't just good and bad guys out there. I assume that we cannot see this Aryo-Barzan as a bad guy because he was the enemy ( of course, speaking from the side of the victor ).

And people keep saying how Alexander didn't build anything. May I remind you that he built close to twenty "Alexandrias". Also remember that during his reign the empire was, so to say "mobile." His army, his ministers, his labourers, slaves, doctors, artists, carpenters, everyone campaigned with him so he didn't really have a time to build anything, because he wasn't done destroying the foundations that he planned to build upon.

He wasn't chivalrous because he purged a whole city while the people in that settlement were completely unarmed and surrenderd.

Which city is that? Are you speaking of Tyre?

[Left Now]

Well I am a fan of Alexander. I think we all agree on his genius and how he was a pure mastermind in terms of warfare and leadership and personal bravery in battle as well.

His motivation wasn't probably making everywhere rich, true. He did this too for personal glory, but we cannot oversee the fact that he did change a lot of things. Not maybe in central Persia or in India, but he changed the culture and ways of Middle East and Egypt completely.

As for Aryo-Barzan, I must admit I've never heard of him before. I thought he simply stormed the capital after Gaugamela. But seeing that even his King fled and most of the generals betrayed him and started serving under Alexander's rule, he must have been very brave and loyal to make a last stand. I also see that he inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, while Alexander's army was more than two times the size of his army.

I think we can see here how there aren't just good and bad guys out there. I assume that we cannot see this Aryo-Barzan as a bad guy because he was the enemy ( of course, speaking from the side of the victor ).

And people keep saying how Alexander didn't build anything. May I remind you that he built close to twenty "Alexandrias". Also remember that during his reign the empire was, so to say "mobile." His army, his ministers, his labourers, slaves, doctors, artists, carpenters, everyone campaigned with him so he didn't really have a time to build anything, because he wasn't done destroying the foundations that he planned to build upon.

I respect him.But about the changing culture of the Middle East,i have to say that he really tried to change the culture of people of the Persia also his successors,but after the Seleucids got destroyed by Parthians,the plot of changing Persian Culture in Persia,Babylonia,Armania,India,Bactria,Syria and Jordan to Greek Culture ended and they only could make major changes in Anatollian and Egyptian and Cyprusian cultures.

However,capturing new territories without rebuilding the previous ones is not a good way of ruling a great empire;Alexander could be an allly for Indians and rebuild his previous conquered territories instead of continuing the war,but he decided to continue his conquests and forgot about ruined cities before him.


Which city is that? Are you speaking of Tyre?


Purging the Persepolis was his biggest crime in Persia,and after that Tisphon and Bactria.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

War's never pretty. This Aryo-Barzan was Persia's last hope, but he failed to stop the Macedonians, and Persia fell. Alexander did what he had to do to solidify his reign and abolish Persia's sovereignty.

In the end, his slaughtering of those innocents and the sacking of Persepolis was good for him and his people. They sent a strong message to any would-be rebels that they'd get the same treatment, and that Persia is no more. He taught them that they need to bow down to him, or they'll suffer the same fate.

[Left Now]

War's never pretty. This Aryo-Barzan was Persia's last hope, but he failed to stop the Macedonians, and Persia fell. Alexander did what he had to do to solidify his reign and abolish Persia's sovereignty.

In the end, his slaughtering of those innocents and the sacking of Persepolis was good for him and his people. They sent a strong message to any would-be rebels that they'd get the same treatment, and that Persia is no more. He taught them that they need to bow down to him, or they'll suffer the same fate.

Yes,but in the future Macedonia and Greece suffered the same from Romans attacks.You know after the Alexander,the Seleucids took the control of Persia and 200 years later,they got destroyed by the Parthian Empire,a real powerful Empire from Persia which could defeat Romans for many times.

As you know,before the Romans,the only civilized nations were Persians,Egyptians,Greeks,Chineses and Mayans in America,and Greek and Persian cultures always had a lot of differences with each other.Alexander was from a Greek culture nation Macedonia,and it is really routin for him to be against the Persian culture,but what he did to Persepolis was a real crime,because the people of Persepolis,after Aryo-Barzan failed in holding the front line and got killed there by Macedonians,surrendered the city to Alexander without any fight or conflict.

Also,if he didn't burn the Persepolis,then maybe now it was one of the great wonders of the world,because that city was be even better than Rome or Technochitlan(the Aztec great capital which got destroyed by Hernan Cortez during the Spanish conquest of Mexico)

[tovaris]

Yes,but in the future Macedonia and Greece suffered the same from Romans attacks.You know after the Alexander,the Seleucids took the control of Persia and 200 years later,they got destroyed by the Parthian Empire,a real powerful Empire from Persia which could defeat Romans for many times.

As you know,before the Romans,the only civilized nations were Persians,Egyptians,Greeks,Chineses and Mayans in America,and Greek and Persian cultures always had a lot of differences with each other.Alexander was from a Greek culture nation Macedonia,and it is really routin for him to be against the Persian culture,but what he did to Persepolis was a real crime,because the people of Persepolis,after Aryo-Barzan failed in holding the front line and got killed there by Macedonians,surrendered the city to Alexander without any fight or conflict.

Also,if he didn't burn the Persepolis,then maybe now it was one of the great wonders of the world,because that city was be even better than Rome or Tlaxacalan(the Aztec great capital which got destroyed by Hernan Cortez during the Spanish conquest of Mexico)

Under alexsandar and his sucsesors a lot of persian and greek cultural elementa merged

[Azunite]

I respect him.But about the changing culture of the Middle East,i have to say that he really tried to change the culture of people of the Persia also his successors,but after the Seleucids got destroyed by Parthians,the plot of changing Persian Culture in Persia,Babylonia,Armania,India,Bactria,Syria and Jordan to Greek Culture ended and they only could make major changes in Anatollian and Egyptian and Cyprusian cultures.

However,capturing new territories without rebuilding the previous ones is not a good way of ruling a great empire;Alexander could be an allly for Indians and rebuild his previous conquered territories instead of continuing the war,but he decided to continue his conquests and forgot about ruined cities before him.





Purging the Persepolis was his biggest crime in Persia,and after that Tisphon and Bactria.


Like I said, he didn't have time to rebuild anything. He died shortly after he ended his campaign. Also, his Indian campaign was also short, he didn't spend much time there.

And you talk about how Greek culture remained only in Anatolia and Egypt. It is because Egypt wasn't a land which was conquered and tempered much, and Anatolia had far too many Greek city states in ancient world (pre-Alexander) for the Greek culture to be destroyed.

Yes,but in the future Macedonia and Greece suffered the same from Romans attacks.You know after the Alexander,the Seleucids took the control of Persia and 200 years later,they got destroyed by the Parthian Empire,a real powerful Empire from Persia which could defeat Romans for many times.

As you know,before the Romans,the only civilized nations were Persians,Egyptians,Greeks,Chineses and Mayans in America,and Greek and Persian cultures always had a lot of differences with each other.Alexander was from a Greek culture nation Macedonia,and it is really routin for him to be against the Persian culture,but what he did to Persepolis was a real crime,because the people of Persepolis,after Aryo-Barzan failed in holding the front line and got killed there by Macedonians,surrendered the city to Alexander without any fight or conflict.

Also,if he didn't burn the Persepolis,then maybe now it was one of the great wonders of the world,because that city was be even better than Rome or Tlaxacalan(the Aztec great capital which got destroyed by Hernan Cortez during the Spanish conquest of Mexico)

Tenochitlan was their capital, not Tlaxcalan. Tlaxcalans were a tribe who sided with the Spanish to attack the Aztec.

You seem to hold on the fact that he destroyed a city a lot. So what? Every conqueror destroyed some cities. I agree with you on some point, in my opinion, Persian cities and cultures were much more advanced, but just because Greeks were snottier and they had guys like Socrates and Aristotales who have made themselves known, we thought they were the only civilised people.

And believe me, if Alexander hadn't destroyed Persepolis, Genghis Khan would raze it to the ground, just like what he did to cities like Samarkand and Baghdat.

Each conqueror does what he must do. How could he know that such a rich city like Persepolis wouldn't be funding a Persian rebellion?

Sacking of greatest cities depend on smallest of frustrations. I may be wrong, surely, but in my opinion if Aryo-Barzan hadn't ambushed Alexander's troops and killed most of his men, he wouldn't have done it to Persepolis. The same thing happened to Thebes; Alexander wiped of the city from the Earth just because they started to show unrest while other cities were already rebelling.

[Left Now]

Like I said, he didn't have time to rebuild anything. He died shortly after he ended his campaign. Also, his Indian campaign was also short, he didn't spend much time there.

And you talk about how Greek culture remained only in Anatolia and Egypt. It is because Egypt wasn't a land which was conquered and tempered much, and Anatolia had far too many Greek city states in ancient world (pre-Alexander) for the Greek culture to be destroyed.



Tenochitlan was their capital, not Tlaxcalan. Tlaxcalans were a tribe who sided with the Spanish to attack the Aztec.

You seem to hold on the fact that he destroyed a city a lot. So what? Every conqueror destroyed some cities. I agree with you on some point, in my opinion, Persian cities and cultures were much more advanced, but just because Greeks were snottier and they had guys like Socrates and Aristotales who have made themselves known, we thought they were the only civilised people.

And believe me, if Alexander hadn't destroyed Persepolis, Genghis Khan would raze it to the ground, just like what he did to cities like Samarkand and Baghdat.

Each conqueror does what he must do. How could he know that such a rich city like Persepolis wouldn't be funding a Persian rebellion?

Sacking of greatest cities depend on smallest of frustrations. I may be wrong, surely, but in my opinion if Aryo-Barzan hadn't ambushed Alexander's troops and killed most of his men, he wouldn't have done it to Persepolis. The same thing happened to Thebes; Alexander wiped of the city from the Earth just because they started to show unrest while other cities were already rebelling.

Maybe,and also thank you for correcting my mistake,for a moment i forgot the differences in their name,you know their names are really annoying if you want to memorize them.

Hey you live in Turkey right?You know i want to have a research about the Ottoman Empire in 16th century and i was just looking for someone to take information from him;You know internet notes will never give you enough information and i do not have enough books about Ottoman Empire,can you help me with it or at least suggest me some more books to buy?

[Azunite]

Maybe,and also thank you for correcting my mistake,for a moment i forgot the differences in their name,you know their names are really annoying if you want to memorize them.

Hey you live in Turkey right?You know i want to have a research about the Ottoman Empire in 16th century and i was just looking for someone to take information from him;You know internet notes will never give you enough information and i do not have enough books about Ottoman Empire,can you help me with it or at least suggest me some more books to buy?

Well to be honest I don't really have books about the Ottomans in 16th century and even if I knew they would mostly be in Turkish and you would hardly find any translations.

I can personally help you with my class books and my personal knowledge if you neeed anything specific.

I must add, any book of Lord Kinross would be helpful (see link: http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Centuries-Lord-Kinross/dp/0688080936)

[Left Now]

Well to be honest I don't really have books about the Ottomans in 16th century and even if I knew they would mostly be in Turkish and you would hardly find any translations.

I can personally help you with my class books and my personal knowledge if you neeed anything specific.

I must add, any book of Lord Kinross would be helpful (see link: http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Centuries-Lord-Kinross/dp/0688080936)

Ah,thanks.