Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: quick question

  1. #1

    Default quick question regarding Alexander the Great

    I love history, but I nevered figured this out.

    When Alexander the Great conqured the known world, didn't at that time the greeks or Macedonians, didn't they know already about Italy, and Africa, so if they did, Alexander didn't conquer the known world, if Italy was forgooton with Africa and other places.

    Could someone please clarify this for me.

    THANKS.

    Title Edited by MareNostrum -UL

  2. #2

    Default

    Yes, the Greeks knew enough about the world. They knew (or thought) that Antartica existed, and they knew that Africa was huge, because Fenician seamen sailed around it (not sure about that, but they sailed damn far). But what would Alexander conquer in Russia or Northern-Africa? Just hot deserts and maybe some tribes. It wasn't worth sending a huge army into an ever huger land to conquer nothing. Persia and India had civilisations unmatched by any other (China doesn't count, it was too far away, and Greece was already under control of Alexander). Italy wasn't the center of the world, as it would later be, it was just a land with a few civilized tribes.

    The Romans conquered northern-africa, but they were wise enough to stay out of the Sahara: they never marched more than a few hundred kilometers from the sea.

  3. #3
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default

    Alexander achievements also tended to grow with through his official history and the later exaggerations of the Alexander Romances. Conqueror of the known world is hardly something Alexander was likely to be called in Athens or Carthage or Syracuse.

    00RedBaron

    Italy wasn't the center of the world, as it would later be, it was just a land with a few civilized tribes
    That is an extreme underestimate. Sicily and Magna Grecia had at least as many large and wealthy cities as Greece proper. Greeks aside you’re ignoring the Etruscans, Spain, Europe, aside Carthage as well.

  4. #4

    Default

    Well thanks for clearning that up for me.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394
    That is an extreme underestimate. Sicily and Magna Grecia had at least as many large and wealthy cities as Greece proper. Greeks aside you’re ignoring the Etruscans, Spain, Europe, aside Carthage as well.

    You're right, there were advanced civilisations in Europe. But the Etruscans and Carthagians were in the 4th century quite advanced, by they ruled not more than a gathering of a few cities if you compare it to the huge Persian empire.

  6. #6

    Default

    persian empire was the best, i'm glad that my background dates back all the back to the persain empire.
    Proudly under the patronage of Tone
    Roma Surrectum Local Moderator

  7. #7
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default

    But the Etruscans and Carthagians were in the 4th century quite advanced, by they ruled not more than a gathering of a few cities if you compare it to the huge Persian empire.
    True. But the first point is: would the man on the street in Athens or Carthage call Alexander the ruler of the known world. I think the answer is obviously no. The moniker was applied later by historians and romantics. With respect to ‘… by they ruled not more than a gathering of a few cities if you compare it to the huge Persian empire’: But what did Alexander rule before conquering Persia, naught but a handful of cities; nor did the Hellenic league number more than 31 tiny cites when they humiliated Xerxes; nor Athens and her empire amount to much more than a handful when Athens dictated terms to Persia. The Roman Republic that defeated Carthage in the Punic Wars controlled litte more than 3 quarters of Italy, but I think there can be no doubt that the Republic would cut throught Persia like butter. It not how big your empire is, but how you use it....

  8. #8

    Default

    O i also have one question. Ok i watched the "alexander" movie, ewwwhhhh!!! a really bad movie. (the older one is a billion times better). But was Alexander really gay??? I dont think he was, that whole movie was way off in many things, but was Alexander really gay???

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigran of Sasoun
    O i also have one question. Ok i watched the "alexander" movie, ewwwhhhh!!! a really bad movie. (the older one is a billion times better). But was Alexander really gay??? I dont think he was, that whole movie was way off in many things, but was Alexander really gay???
    No, Alexander wasn't gay. He was bisexual: he had relationships with both men and women. Being gay was considerated normal in ancient Hellenistic civilisations.

  10. #10

    Default

    Why didn't Alexander, after conquering Persia, conquer the peninsula of Rome, ok, it wasn't rich, but he could have build cities in there and make them rich...
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  11. #11

    Default

    india was rich already might as well take india and then he had plans to start a war with carthage so he did at least take into account of africa but did not live to set that plan into motion

  12. #12

    Default

    I don't know why not didn't he turn east to take on India and after that went back to babylon and died there, who knows what alexander do if he lives on, possibly take it on rome as well.

  13. #13
    Romanos's Avatar Hey
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Alexandria,Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,866

    Default

    because is troop wher at the verge of Mutiny
    Under the Great and Honorable Patronage of Fabolous
    Patron (father) of Sir Matthias and ForgottenImmortal
    Grandson of Lucius Veronus
    Member of S.I.N
    Sept 2003 - 2004 - 2nd Generation Jun 23 2004 (25-Feb)

  14. #14
    Scar Face's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ont, Canada
    Posts
    5,147

    Default

    y were they? and the question was not was he? it was why didnt he and why is it considerd he conquered the world when clearly theres alot more and close and if he brought a good army could be beaten fairly easily excample just cuz earth unites into one nation and we know there's life on other planets and empire in the galaxy i cant claim i controll the galaxy just because i won earth and just cuz i planned to and dindt and i contoled some dosent mean i controlled the galaxy its excacly the same OH SCAR_FACE STRIKES AGAIN! WOO I WIN I WIN ...srry lack of food

  15. #15

    Default

    Well, ScareFace has proving the foolishness of saying that Alexander conquered the known world. Well done ScareFace, here, have a lollipop!

    Foolish history channel (at 30 he had conquered the known world...).
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  16. #16

    Default

    Why didn't Alexander, after conquering Persia, conquer the peninsula of Rome?
    India was a bit closer. Plus I think he got sucked (or possibly suckered) into Indian politics.
    "In war, with its enormous friction, even the mediocre is quite an achievement" - Moltke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •