These days I don't use the social media anyway. Because the social media is full of judgemental, toxic people. They don't know you, yet they judge you. They find pleasure in being mean, rude, abusive. And if it's a friendship, or dating site, the situation is worse, especially for women.

I joined this community because I am interested in the subject matter. But I find that people have started complaining how I post here too often. I don't know how it bothers them, since I do not post anything objectionable, offensive, or irrelevant. I post on the subject matter only. They have started advising me to find other hobbies & interests & a guy in real life & to get rid of my "super unhealthy parasocial relationship" with Alexander, without knowing what I do & if I already have any other hobby, or interest. They don't know anything about me, yet they comment on my personal life. I didn't come here for this. So, it's time to stop.

No wonder staying away from the social media is good for mental health!

I am from India myself, yet the amount of hatred many Indians have towards Alexander amazes me!

I understand that Alexander invaded India & that may piss off Indians.

But does that mean they have to distort history to belittle him?? "Porus defeated Alexander", "Alexander is overrated, he is a nobody to Indians", "Alexander was just a petty thief who came to steal from India, but ran away & died like a dog", "Alexander was a loser, an idiot", etc. are some of the popular remarks by Indians on Alexander.

Do they think Alexander is remembered & celebrated after more than 2,000 years for nothing??

They are blind nationalists. If they want to uplift their nation, they should play their parts in making India truly great by ridding the country of all the negativities plaguing it. That's true patriotism. Distorting history & spreading lies to insult a legendary historical figure doesn't make a nation great, it only exposes its inferiority complex!

I am a big fan of Alexander, but not a blind one.

A disturbing thing I find about Alexander is his hunting habit. This guy hunted for sport, just to show how brave, strong & powerful he was. He even hunted lions.

Actually he was not the only Royal to do this. Royalties & Nobilities have always hunted for sport & in many countries Royals & rich & powerful people still do it.

I can't imagine killing living beings who have no clue why they are being attacked in the first place! In this way, humans have driven so many species to extinction. Alexander & other Royals have hunted Asiatic lions through ages & today wild Asiatic lions are found only in India, they are extinct everywhere else. Lions were found in Europe too, but today they are extinct as well.

Many may say I am imposing modern day morality on ancient people. But I think, killing innocent creatures for the sake of someone's ego can never be right in any age. Plus, as I said, rich & powerful people still do it in many parts of the world.

The funny thing is, if these people see their families & friends getting killed, they won't call it a sport anymore, as if their lives matter more than those of the ones they kill.

Many people call Alexander violent. He was bred in a culture that glorified violence, be it animal sacrifice, hunting, or war. No wonder he became what he became.

Be sure to check out my original post: https://x.com/JordanAcademia1/status/1774874550322254294?s=20

See https://www.academia.edu/6055583/Alexander_in_Bavli_Tamid_In_Search_for_a_Meaning and Brill's Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great. The earliest written accounts on Alexander in Jewish tradition are older than the ones we have preserved from the Greco-Roman world. They start with the appearance of Alexander in the historical and prophetic narratives of the Second Temple period. In one of the most recognizable prophetic biblical passages, the Book of Daniel represents Alexander as a warrior he-goat conquering the previous imperial power and ruling over the world; in a similar context he appears in Book iii of the Sibylline Oracles, one of the parts of the Oracles that was quite certainly composed in the Jewish milieu. There is a set of rather fascinating stories about Alexander in the Talmud and in the Midrashic narratives. Some of the episodes repeat the stories known from Greek and Roman sources, but often with differences in details or with different focus and meaning, and it is a common consensus that they stem rather from an independent oral source than from a reworking of a literary Greek text. Such is the story in the tractate Tamid 31b–32a (Alexander in dispute with the Elders of the South, an equivalent of the disputation with the Gymnosophists, found in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander 64–65 and in the Romance iii, 6). Other cases include the Talmudic versions of narratives known otherwise from different Jewish sources, like the story of Alexander in Jerusalem, appearing both in Josephus and in the Rabbinic tradition (Megillat Taʾanit 9, Yoma 69a, Genesis Rabbah lxi, 7) or those shared (often with changes included) with the Romance tradition: Tamid 32a contains the stories of Alexander’s journey to the land of darkness, of his encounter with the Amazons and of Alexander at the gates of paradise, all of which appear also in the Romance (The Land of Darkness: Alexander Romance β ii, 39–41; see also Iter ad paradisum; the Amazons: iii, 25–26). Other material in common for the Romance and Rabbinic writings includes the stories of Alexander’s ascent into the air (Abodah Zarah iii, 1, 42c, Numbers Rabbah 13, 4, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 11, 28b–29a, Yalkut Shimoni to 1Kings, 18) and his descent to the bottom of the sea (Midrash Tehilim Ps. 93, 5, Yalkut Shimoni Ps. 93, 848; Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 11, 28b–29a, Yalkut Shimoni to 1Kings, 18). Among the stories there are also some that do not have a direct equivalent in the existing Greek Alexander literature such as the story of the King of Kazia, present in a number of version in Talmudic literature (Baba Mezia ii, 5, 8c; Genesis Rabbah 33, 1; Pesikta de-Reb Kahana 9, 24; Leviticus Rabbah 27, 1; Midrash Tanhuma Emor 6, Yalkut Shimoni Ps. 36, 727), the story of the throne of Solomon (Targum Sheni i, 2) and the narrative about the bones of the prophet Jeremiah (Midrash Haggadah Numbers, 30, 15). In the late Middle Ages (12th–14th c.), a number of Hebrew versions of the Alexander Romance emerged.

Again, see: https://x.com/JordanAcademia1/status/1774874550322254294?s=20 for the whole thing.

If you want the history of Alexander you need to go elsewhere to get it. While there’s nothing wrong at all with reading Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, you need to understand it in no way represents Alexander as a person. It represents what Plutarch thinks a Roman Emperor should be as a person. This is a morale tale designed to entertain Roman’s and be a teachable example of good Roman virtues.

Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Diodorus tell a different history. Thebes isn’t the fault of some random Greek forces out of Alexander’s control. Thebes is just a cause and effect of Philip’s and then Alexander’s obliteration of Greek liberty. Alexander, like Philip, was ruthless. 30,000 Thebans (men, women, children, elderly) slaughtered, raped, tortured and enslaved and the city burned to the ground as a message to the rest of the Hellenes what happens when you cross Alexander.

Civilians slaughtered again in Miletus, Halicarnasses, Sagalassus, Tyre, and Gaza. More elderly, sick, women, and children. All tortured, raped, enslaved and murdered while the cities were pillaged. More grim messages of what happens when you cross Alexander. Between Bactria and Afghanistan more tens of thousands men, women, and children, sick and elderly tortured, raped, enslaved, and murdered. This is again more messages about what happens when you don’t immediately surrender.

In Plutarch’s stories these are the faults of the men, women, and children themselves. For not recognizing the rightful ruler all the lives of everyone are forfeit. Never mind that a child cannot submit a city, nor can a women, or the elderly, or the sick. In Plutarch these are minimized unfortunates (you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs) and yet even Plutarch cannot help but tell us of the horror these people endure in the background.

Plutarch gives multiple accounts of Alexander stopping the day to day business of running an empire as large as his to divert resources and aid to helping his generals chase down and capture their runaway slaves. Small boys, women, and men whose lives are so tormented they seek refuge in temples, run to foreign lands with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Anyone familiar with the tortured lives of slaves in the Antebellum South would not have to think hard to imagine the every day horrors of these slaves.

Alexander himself sets his own slave on fire according to Plutarch. Not a slave who tried to run away. Not one who tried to kill or assault Alexander. Not a slave who defied Alexander. Just a slave whose job was to sing to him and keep him entertained. Alexander set him on fire just to see if he would burn.

While Plutarch spouts about Alexander’s virtuousness in not raping the wife of Darius III after she’s captured, Plutarch fails to tell the reader that Darius’ wife died in childbirth 12 months after she was captured by Alexander. These leads to an uncomfortable revelation about Alexander’s virtuousness.

Ask yourself if you were still trying to track down and capture Darius and establish yourself as legitimate ruler of all Persia would you sell off Darius’ wife as slave to one of your generals and risk that general getting a legitimate heir to the Persian throne through royal blood? Would you do that if you were the tactical genius of Alexander? Or, did Alexander rape her himself and keep her as a slave in an attempt to get a legitimate heir to the Persian throne himself? When she dies Alexander later tries again through the forced marriage of one of Darius’ daughters (who of course cannot consent and is again raped, probably multiple times by Alexander).

There is a picture here agreed in the accounts of three ancient historian that Alexander didn’t hesitate to slaughter and enslave anyone for any reason. That he did indeed rape and enslave women as much as his generals did. That the lives of slaves were so horrible and yet Alexander stopped running his kingdom to make sure slaves were captured, broken, and returned to their owners.

And if after all the above you still want to cling to Plutarch as the true historian of Alexander, I’m going to ask you to read the opening paragraphs in your Life of Alexander the Great by Plutarch.

Go ahead, open up that book, flip to the front and read along with me “… I should not by way of apology forewarn my reader that I have chosen rather to epitomize the most celebrated parts of their story, than to insist at large on every particular circumstance of it. It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives.”

In Plutarch’s own words, he’s not writing a history. He’s taking the most celebrated parts of Alexander’s life (as Roman’s would celebrate and remember them), and creating a story of a moral tale of Alexander as the best example of what a true Roman aristocrat and ruler should be.

The Alexander of Plutarch’s life of Alexander reflects the real words, thoughts, and emotions of Alexander the way Aragorn of the Lord of the Rings reflects the real words, thoughts, and emotions of Alexander. Plutarch has come out and told you he’s writing a fiction based on a real world figure.

I think, my first post in this community mentioned that I crushed on Alexander 😀

I am from India & he came to India. If only I was present during that time & could meet him! I don't want to sound like a traitor, but if I could, I would give him the whole of India 😄

Do you think he would be as great a lover, or husband as a conqueror?

He has definitely conquered me!

I am not just an Alexander fan, but a football, that is, soccer fan as well :-)

And guess what! Alexander's country Greece has recently lost to Georgia in the Euro 2024 Qualifiers & narrowly missed the opportunity to play in the Euro :-(

Greece needed an Alexander in football too, they would never lose a single match then :-D

Yesterday I came across a comment by a Persian, or Iranian on a Reddit post where he "swore by God" that if one would visit Persepolis in Iran, one would surely feel Alexander's spirit hanging around! The post, or the community was not related to Alexander, but he was mentioned in course of discussion.

Which means, there is a chance that if I go to Persepolis, I may meet Alexander & tell him personally all I want to tell him & how much I like him! Doesn't matter if it's his spirit, I won't be afraid of ghost, after all it's Alexander 😀

Somebody here has recently commented I am in a parasocial relationship with Alexander 😄

A famous episode describes Alexander the Great being sick. Parmenion told Alexander that his doctor has been corrupted by Darius and was going to give him poison. Alexander chose to trust his doctor, which was a good choice. Since then, some people suspects Parmenion of playing a double game.

Recently, I discovered that 1 day before the battle of Gaugamela, Parmenion advised Alexander to launch a night attack on Darius camp. Alexander refused. It was a very good choice because this night, Darius soldiers were drawn up into battle formation, because they suspected the Greeks to do a night attack.

Do you think Parmenion was in the game with the Persian because he wanted to see Alexander fail or at least not overcome his father ?

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if anyone had any good book or article recommendations for the Hypaspists or Silver Shields? The unit seems fascinating to me and is frequently referenced during Alexander’s Campaigns and the wars of the Diadochi but largely without a lot of detail.

From my understanding the Hypaspists were first used by Philip as light infantry similar to Peltasts. Then Alexander used them as more lightly armored Philangites or lightly armored infantry? To protect the flanks of his pikemen. Eventually he honored some or all of them by giving them the silver for their shields, giving them the name Silver Shields and from there it seems like their role was more of the heavy Philiangites. At least based on the battle details from when they fought for Perdiccas and Eumenes I got the impression the Silver Shields were more like heavy infantry.

So I’m also wondering if anyone has more information on how this unit actually fought and if there was any connection to the future Seleucid Silver Shields other than their name.

I remember reading in The Western Way of War by Hanson stating that part of the reason why Arrows were ineffective against the Greek Phalanx and later Macedonian Pikemen was that in addition to the shield Wall and Bronze Armor, the long spears hoplites and Macedonian phalangites typically held vertically before the clash protected him from arrows or at least dulled it before it actually hits him.

I am curious how does long Pole-Arm Weapons protect its wielder from Arrows?

Also I am curious-The Scots used the Schiltron, a long formation in which they were wielded long pole arms (pikes) and part of the formation included men behind wielding their pikes vertically. In this case however I read the Schiltron was vulnerable to archery barrages and that it was arrows that broke through William Wallace's formation at Falkirk.

In this case why didn't the long pole arms held vertically protect Wallace's pikemen as opposed to the Greek Hoplites?

Does holding spears vertically provide protection against arrow barrages?

Hanson's claims is inconsistent.

The Yari Ashigaru and Yari Samurais and to a much leser extent Roman legionnaires were known to suffer casualties despite being in spear walls.

However Macedonians historical texts describes the same thing about the long Sarissas protecting the Macedonian Phalanx from arrows and the Swiss Pikeman despite lacking shields in their formations also suffered minimal casualties from arrows in their squares.

I am curious why this inconsistencies in account?

Alexander used to visit the famous painter Apelles at his studio. He admired Apelles a lot & even got his own portraits made by him.

Oneday Alexander visited Apelles' studio & kept talking a lot about his painting without knowing anything about the subject. Finally, Apelles shut him up by saying, "Will you please stop? Even my students who are grinding the paint are laughing at you!"

In another instance, Alexander told Apelles to make a portrait of himself riding his beloved Bucephalus. When Apelles made the portrait & showed it to Alexander, he didn't like it. Apelles then showed it to Bucephalus who neighed, as if approving of the portrait. Apelles said to Alexander, "Your horse has a better taste for art than you!"

Either Apelles was lucky, or Alexander really admired his skills as well as his boldness, since Apelles was still alive after humiliating Alexander more than once! :-D

The King and Emperor appeared later, the despot was in the “republics” of Hellas. What did the subjects call their ruler?

It has been more than 2,000 years, and we still remember, talk about & celebrate him! Still books & articles are written & movies & documentaries are made about him. People discuss & debate aspects of his personal life, like his sexual orientation :-) There are still stories about him on different media. He still has fans & is considered a hero in his own country & worldwide. He wanted to conquer the world, he did do it, in the sense that there is probably not a single country on Earth where at least some people don't know him. He has a lasting legacy. Isn't it amazing?? I wonder how Alexander would feel if he came to know this. He wanted ever-lasting glory, he got long-lasting, if not ever-lasting, fame!

Alexander apparently had a troubled relationship with his father Philip II. He was closer to his Mom than Dad.

Do you think if Alexander lived to raise his son, he would be a father than his own Dad? Or there would be the same ego fight & power struggle between Alexander & his son?

Unlike Olympias, Roxana wouldn't probably brainwash Alexander IV against his Dad.

Would his dynasty survive? Or some other Diadochi would do the same to his family, killing all of them & ending Alexander's direct lineage?

It feels bad how the vast empire Alexander created literally with blood & sweat got disintegrated the moment he died!

I am from India. I love Alexander! And it makes me so happy that Alexander has close Indian connection.

In India, Alexander is called Sikandar.

Alexander's last major battle was fought in India. Battle of Hydaspes. It was a hard earned victory for Alexander. Some accounts say Alexander's ultimate destination to the East was India, since he thought it was the end of the world & there was a sea connecting India and Greece.

Alexander conquered North & North-West India. So, he was the ruler of a part of my country & in that sense, I can call him my King :-)

Alexander's horse Bucephalus died in India. He founded the city of Bucephalia here in memory of his beloved Bucephalus.

He also founded the city of Nicaea in India, probably to honor a fallen soldier, or General. Close to Amritsar in Punjab, he founded another city named Alexandria.

Later on, Indian Emperor Chandragupta Maurya married Helena, daughter of Seleucus, General & Companion of Alexander. Thus, Alexander's Companion had an Indian son-in-law :-)

This is my question to Alexander fans.

On my part, I would simply love Alexander to be my King! :-)

What do you say??

I would like to mention here that Alexander actually ruled a part of my country India, since he conquered it.

I dunno if i got all the details rigjt but reading this part in my Philip Freeman book on Alexandros made me laugh at how many things went wrong in that moment and how mental it was that he survived it. I wanted to draw it out like a little comic so i started to write down what each Frame would include:

Frame one: the wall and place he wants to get into, maybe with the ladder against the wall

Frame two: his frustration losing it and ending up climbing it himself

Frame three : his generals looking at each other

Frame four: the general climbing the ladder

Frame five: the soliders feeling guilty trying to climb up the ladder at once

Frame six: the ladder breaking

Frame seven: alexandros looking down at the men in disbelief

Frame eight: the tree

Frane nine: alexandros climbing down by the tree

Frame ten: his general looking at eachother in disbelief

Frame eleven: his soliders trying to bang on the gate to get in

Frame twelve: Alexandros throwing rocks at the enemy approaching him

Frame thirteen: his general climb down the tree

Frame fourteen: alexandros is shot in the lung with an arrow

Frame fifteen: his men make it down the tree and protect alexandros

Frame sixteen: Alexandros against the tree bleeding bad and struggling to breath

Frame seventeen: his men make it through the gate

Frame eighteen: the get alexandros and escape

I was planning on watching the Alexander the Great Netflix documentary. However After looking at reviews that said the show has false information, and is essentially bland. What are some good Alexander the Great documentary recommendations?

If you have, what do you think of it?

In my opinion, it's simply awesome. She has brought Alexander's world to life in a way that we can relate with it even in the 21st century. Most importantly, it seems she understands the characters in depth, including Alexander's character. While reading it, I felt as if I could see all the characters & witness all the events happening personally. It can easily be made into a movie.

Her portrayal of a beautifully proud, sometimes arrogant & stubborn, majestic Alexander who's full of energy & enthusiasm & who's both mature for his age as well as a child at heart longing for love & friendship & has a world of his own makes me fall in love with Alexander even more! :-) I have a feeling that Alexander was actually like this.