ancient macedonians spoke greek, had the same religion with other greeks and had the same origins with what you consider to be ancient greeks, alexander's goal was to succeed the panhelenic idea his father had accomplished and bring all greek cities together including the birthplace of alexander, now why on earth would you consider him not greek? according to aristotelis (his teacher) greeks are considered those who speak greek, believe in greek gods and have taken the greek teachings
@maynardgravy : have you ever even read a history book you idiot? prehistoric times??? you're talking about times when egypt built pyramids that are so absolutely massive that we can't even figure out how they managed to move the stones, and you think that these people had no way of feeding/watering their massive armies? your ignorance makes my head hurt ;/
@whosbio Obviously he is wrong in not thinking that they had no way of feeding/watering their armies but at same time he has a valid point in that the numbers seems extremely exaggerated. I've read Plutarch's work extensively as well as other writers from the time. They always exaggerate events and battles and add an element of sensationalism to their stories. Additionally Plutarch being Greek would have a bias towards Alexander in regards to exaggerating the figures at any rate.
@bigbossmann99 Dude, I was commenting tongue & cheek about the misuse of prehistoric.. Relax! But everyone should know that those numbers are not accurate. Wikipedia (which is not a source for accuracy), give more modern estimates under the link "Battle_of_Gaugamela - Modern Estimates".
And note that!The name Greece comes from Graia=old and was a religious adjective rather than a national name!Εllas/Ellin was the ethnic name for themselves.Citystates had their own rules but as a national call themselves Ellines.The name Greeks adopted by the Latins as a paraphrase/antidaneio from Graikoi.Graia called the Greek goddess Athena and Demeter!Therefore the difference in the names of Greece Macedonia is not exist!So..MACEDONIA IS ELLAS!
@danbagheri Too bad for them.They should know better.MAcedonians carry the truth,not what the west says,or the Greeks.It will be revealed soon.People will just die from the pain of not accepting the truth,and it's not that they've been thought wrong,but because they choose to believe such lies.
why why why they always use the term asia...tht alexander win asia he just win persia...(iran and iraq) may be till pakistan...wht about big land india a china...so pl my dear historian dont call him king of asia..he dont even win 20percent of asia..Great khan win more of europe then he win asia..but they call him cruel king..strange
@890buddha first of all...the word idiot suites ur father bec he is the reason tht such a stupid shit like u come on this earth....second thing if u want to talk then try to come with facts and make some point dont talk foolish... (image alexzander as china's first emperor) most useless statement.......
I hate those medieval paintings of Alexander. It distracts me from the image in my mind of the battles. At least they could show the Alexander mosaic which is more accurate.
Great civilization always fall. It doesn't matter what Persia was really like, we will face much serious problems in near future. All U've to do is to open Ur eyes moor widely.
DON'T FORGET that the waste majority of present days Greeks in Greek Macedonia have arrived there during the 20th Century from present days Turkey and from the Greek islands, while the waste majority of the Macedonians who used to live in Greek Macedonia were expelled out to the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and all over Europe. So, these Greek Macedonians live in Greek Macedonia not even, as much as, ONE Century.
@thedamgame Well, stay out of Europe and the rest of the west and their won't be an issue. People need to stay in their own homelands instead of attempting to redefine others. People would be pissed in the Middle East if tons of whites came over and attempted to usurp their law and culture. Same is going on in Europe and the west with all the Muslims.
@KingAlexanderNevsky well we had Josef Stalin and possibly Napoleon (yeah I know he may be a bit old) They're just the same only thing is this happened in a time when conquering was glorified instead of looked upon with disgust. Please don't give me any comments saying I'm a communist or something. Thing is all of them strove for an empire greater than any other, really. Cheers lads!
@zz13x Adolf was a completely different kind of ruler, and he failed miserably and didn't know a thing about tactics or strategy, all he did was give speeches. Napoleon Bonaparte was the closest thing to an Alexander the Great in "modern" times. There hasn't been anyone since Napoleon that's come close to what alexander was like.
@biagiotti2006 I was thinking more about the building a massive empire for no reason, killing people for the hell of it, and the other stuff like that.
@biagiotti2006 Well, can you think of one good reason why he should have built an empire? Killing his own men because they were angry at him for sending them home and using Persians? Killing his friend Black Cleitus, his friend who saved him at Granicus? Torturing Philotas until he admitted to plotting to assassinate him just to stop the pain?
@biagiotti2006 when you say adolf hitler was a completely different ruler and he failed miserable and that napoleon was the closest to a good leader? Hitler was superior to Napoleon in many war ways, just for the wrong cause, Napoleon won less than he lost, the only reason Hitler was defeated in World War II was because they did not like the idea of Russian communism and turned down the offer of a truce, meaning they were cornered on all angles and lost. Napoleon was no tactic ruler.
@auzzrush Hitler and hitler alone was the cause of the german failure of ww2. The only reason why the germans succeeded at first was because hitler, at first, allowed the GENERALS to come up with military planning. Once hitler thought he was a tactical genius he failed miserably. He allowed the Englsh to escape the channel during the invasion of France, he helped the italians way too much, he ordered "stop orders" for his main army on route to Moscow.... Napoleon was a general and leader.
the last days when great commanders appeared were world war II...but now that there are no major wars, there could be no chance for any commander to show his talents...
This is what makes the ancient historical claims so laughable - 100 to 300,000. No doubt it was a great victory but those figures are unsubstantiated and unobtainable. How on earth could they have even fed and watered such numbers in almost prehistoric times? More than likely that Alexander suffered circa 8,000 casualties and Darius 25,000 from a force maybe twice the size.
@maynardgravy I agree, historians severely exaggerate numbers, BUT, in all honesty to answer your question about ancient times, the persians had a system where they could have done this I think alot of people think they had around 200K men,
You would have to mobilise an army from scratch. No rivers all the time. Agriculture was backward, and what about lines of retreat?
Look, Napoleon took an army of 500,000 into Russia with modern agriculture and wagon trains and herds of cattle. At the great battle of Borodino where it was carnage, all day with cannon, sword and musket, both sides in total lost Circa 85,000 men, there is no way that these figures hold up, they are pure fantasy and ancient propaganda.
@maynardgravy That's the thing, it could have had a like or something right next to it. Or he had people send water, you don't have to send people after the person before comes back you know.
@maynardgravy i disagree, most casualities in battle are cause when in rout, what you describe sounds more of a pyrhic victory than a decisive one. experts in books i've read suggest about 300 for alexander (which is actually alot) and about the same number of casualities as you describe for darius :)
@maynardgravy In the battles,the ones they died were the ones they didn't have faith in Aleksandar,or the enemy that projected hate,and it returned hate to them as a mirror deflection.Aleksandaar was sent by god,and protected and lead by God.Who wanted peace,he gave them eace,who wanted war...he got it.
@maynardgravy Your post show leaves me to believe that you post in complete ignorance. Prehistoric times? Do you even know what "prehistoric" means? It means the time PRIOR to recorded history. The time of Alexander was NOT prehistoric nor was it almost prehistoric. Everything was recorded and documented.
@deniart Obviously he is wrong in not thinking that they had no way of feeding/watering their armies but at same time he has a valid point in that the numbers seems extremely exaggerated. I've read Plutarch's work extensively as well as other writers from the time. They always exaggerate events and battles and add an element of sensationalism to their stories. Additionally Plutarch being Greek would have a bias towards Alexander in regards to exaggerating the figures at any rate.
@maynardgravy Unlikely but it is possible. Napoleon's Grande Armee' at about 600,000 men foraged as they went, they all lived off of the land and didn't need to worry about supply lines. The art of foraging changed after the industrial revolution when it came to warfare I think, so having a large army back then wasn't completely unrealistic.
Such a short life i agree, but in such a short life he achieved so much, what i disliked after he died, it crumbled when it could have again flourished, if they had have rested the men and not poisoned his son and also conquering more instead of splitting it between themselves and falling into war.
Wow...this guy gets better and better I swear eh...like sorry for the dead but...wow the ambition and the sheer strategy this guys got.....incredible...Love the story...He who wins the war writes history...so who knows how things really went down...but all's I know is...I want>>>WORLD PEACE :D Wa Alaikum Assalam
They completely skipped his visit to Jerusalem!
CrystalHunter1989 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ancient macedonians spoke greek, had the same religion with other greeks and had the same origins with what you consider to be ancient greeks, alexander's goal was to succeed the panhelenic idea his father had accomplished and bring all greek cities together including the birthplace of alexander, now why on earth would you consider him not greek? according to aristotelis (his teacher) greeks are considered those who speak greek, believe in greek gods and have taken the greek teachings
HellasItalia4 6 months ago
*** АЛЕКСАНДАР МАКЕДОНСКИ ***
mileztb 7 months ago
He played the battle with the ease of a videogame.
unifiedreality 8 months ago
@maynardgravy : have you ever even read a history book you idiot? prehistoric times??? you're talking about times when egypt built pyramids that are so absolutely massive that we can't even figure out how they managed to move the stones, and you think that these people had no way of feeding/watering their massive armies? your ignorance makes my head hurt ;/
whosbio 11 months ago
@whosbio Obviously he is wrong in not thinking that they had no way of feeding/watering their armies but at same time he has a valid point in that the numbers seems extremely exaggerated. I've read Plutarch's work extensively as well as other writers from the time. They always exaggerate events and battles and add an element of sensationalism to their stories. Additionally Plutarch being Greek would have a bias towards Alexander in regards to exaggerating the figures at any rate.
bigbossmann99 11 months ago
@bigbossmann99 Dude, I was commenting tongue & cheek about the misuse of prehistoric.. Relax! But everyone should know that those numbers are not accurate. Wikipedia (which is not a source for accuracy), give more modern estimates under the link "Battle_of_Gaugamela - Modern Estimates".
deniart 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And note that!The name Greece comes from Graia=old and was a religious adjective rather than a national name!Εllas/Ellin was the ethnic name for themselves.Citystates had their own rules but as a national call themselves Ellines.The name Greeks adopted by the Latins as a paraphrase/antidaneio from Graikoi.Graia called the Greek goddess Athena and Demeter!Therefore the difference in the names of Greece Macedonia is not exist!So..MACEDONIA IS ELLAS!
4anuvis4 11 months ago
The war description is good but the computerized war description is fucking wrong
xXLoneWolf212Xx 1 year ago
most iranians think very lowly of Alexander and what western historian make him seem
danbagheri 1 year ago
@danbagheri Too bad for them.They should know better.MAcedonians carry the truth,not what the west says,or the Greeks.It will be revealed soon.People will just die from the pain of not accepting the truth,and it's not that they've been thought wrong,but because they choose to believe such lies.
Prophecies are coming true.It has started.
MACEDONIA TO THE MACEDONIANS.
MAKEDON.
MomciloStojanovski 1 year ago
@MomciloStojanovski I see , I guess we have to try and sort through the lies.
danbagheri 1 year ago
totally undisturbed shhhhcleep.
cute.
abotchify 1 year ago
great documentary
awokanamara 1 year ago
great documentry
awokanamara 1 year ago
@GreenieGuru may be u need to check ur ears...and dont call ur father fool....
loveindublin 1 year ago
he did not rule asia,he only ruled parts of it. more eurocentric non-sense.
CELL111able 1 year ago
why why why they always use the term asia...tht alexander win asia he just win persia...(iran and iraq) may be till pakistan...wht about big land india a china...so pl my dear historian dont call him king of asia..he dont even win 20percent of asia..Great khan win more of europe then he win asia..but they call him cruel king..strange
loveindublin 1 year ago
@loveindublin well idiot, khan was a savage, alexander was civilised, and alexander wanted india and china, image alexander as china's first emperor.
890buddha 1 year ago
@890buddha first of all...the word idiot suites ur father bec he is the reason tht such a stupid shit like u come on this earth....second thing if u want to talk then try to come with facts and make some point dont talk foolish... (image alexzander as china's first emperor) most useless statement.......
loveindublin 1 year ago
I hate those medieval paintings of Alexander. It distracts me from the image in my mind of the battles. At least they could show the Alexander mosaic which is more accurate.
edd0f 1 year ago
rofl! The True Story of Alexander !!
bideitsmartly 1 year ago
I thought scythe chariots only existed in epitoma rei militaris
CorpusChristi83 1 year ago
@maynardgravy prehistoric denotes a time before writing, writing had been around for a long time......
kordara 1 year ago
Reminds me a lot of Hitler.
ColonelMarksman 1 year ago
@ColonelMarksman Well, Hitler modeled Nazi Germany off of Spartan ideals of a nation-state.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@rtgoodson Spartans never exterminated 6 millions of people...
saimonross69 1 year ago
@saimonross69 Do you honestly think they wouldn't have if they had the technology?
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Great civilization always fall. It doesn't matter what Persia was really like, we will face much serious problems in near future. All U've to do is to open Ur eyes moor widely.
kisielen 2 years ago 3
grei nok :)
dagneelskerfotball 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DON'T FORGET that the waste majority of present days Greeks in Greek Macedonia have arrived there during the 20th Century from present days Turkey and from the Greek islands, while the waste majority of the Macedonians who used to live in Greek Macedonia were expelled out to the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and all over Europe. So, these Greek Macedonians live in Greek Macedonia not even, as much as, ONE Century.
Pinto144 2 years ago
i hope by now u people would know that persia is not about damn musilm mullas and devils. its about a great culture and civalization.
but the jew are trying to destroy our reputation such as 300 movie.
thedamgame 2 years ago
I'm sure it was fine before Islam's "re-imagination" of Paganism.
chris2002Rocklin 2 years ago
@thedamgame Well, stay out of Europe and the rest of the west and their won't be an issue. People need to stay in their own homelands instead of attempting to redefine others. People would be pissed in the Middle East if tons of whites came over and attempted to usurp their law and culture. Same is going on in Europe and the west with all the Muslims.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Damn Alexander was good. Sad that we'll never see a man such as him in our lifetime.
KingAlexanderNevsky 2 years ago 18
@KingAlexanderNevsky Closest person to Alexander could be considered Hitler in modern history.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky: Never Say Never!
stxrattbastard 1 year ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky Yeah, I wish someone would grow to conquer the world and slay millions of people......seriously?
CorpusChristi83 1 year ago
@CorpusChristi83 That's war for you, you have to kill. It's been that way for billions of years.
Salien1999 1 year ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky *Cough* Hitler *Cough*
WhatTheTwinky 1 year ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky You will be surprised when you find out you were wrong.MAcedonia will be whole again,with Aleksandar,and all of his glory.
MAKEDON
MomciloStojanovski 1 year ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky well we had Josef Stalin and possibly Napoleon (yeah I know he may be a bit old) They're just the same only thing is this happened in a time when conquering was glorified instead of looked upon with disgust. Please don't give me any comments saying I'm a communist or something. Thing is all of them strove for an empire greater than any other, really. Cheers lads!
MJBOW1 11 months ago
@MJBOW1 Joseph Stalin (not even close, apples to oranges) Napoleon (Very similar)
biagiotti2006 9 months ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky
Yes, but there is one similar to him in more recent history. His name was Adolf Hitler.
zz13x 11 months ago
@zz13x the difference between them is that hitler was a racist ass-hole who failed
kickmybowls 9 months ago
@zz13x Adolf was a completely different kind of ruler, and he failed miserably and didn't know a thing about tactics or strategy, all he did was give speeches. Napoleon Bonaparte was the closest thing to an Alexander the Great in "modern" times. There hasn't been anyone since Napoleon that's come close to what alexander was like.
biagiotti2006 9 months ago
@biagiotti2006 I was thinking more about the building a massive empire for no reason, killing people for the hell of it, and the other stuff like that.
zz13x 8 months ago
@zz13x You thought he built an empire for no reason, killed people for the hell of it, and other "stuff" like that...?
Maybe history is not your strength. Stick to what you know. :)
biagiotti2006 8 months ago
@biagiotti2006 Well, can you think of one good reason why he should have built an empire? Killing his own men because they were angry at him for sending them home and using Persians? Killing his friend Black Cleitus, his friend who saved him at Granicus? Torturing Philotas until he admitted to plotting to assassinate him just to stop the pain?
zz13x 8 months ago
@biagiotti2006 when you say adolf hitler was a completely different ruler and he failed miserable and that napoleon was the closest to a good leader? Hitler was superior to Napoleon in many war ways, just for the wrong cause, Napoleon won less than he lost, the only reason Hitler was defeated in World War II was because they did not like the idea of Russian communism and turned down the offer of a truce, meaning they were cornered on all angles and lost. Napoleon was no tactic ruler.
auzzrush 6 months ago
@auzzrush Hitler and hitler alone was the cause of the german failure of ww2. The only reason why the germans succeeded at first was because hitler, at first, allowed the GENERALS to come up with military planning. Once hitler thought he was a tactical genius he failed miserably. He allowed the Englsh to escape the channel during the invasion of France, he helped the italians way too much, he ordered "stop orders" for his main army on route to Moscow.... Napoleon was a general and leader.
biagiotti2006 6 months ago
Comment removed
biagiotti2006 5 months ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky
I am very very glad we will never see another Alexander.
He could take out the world in a few days.
IwasBlackace 10 months ago
@KingAlexanderNevsky
the last days when great commanders appeared were world war II...but now that there are no major wars, there could be no chance for any commander to show his talents...
coerdelion13 7 months ago
@coerdelion13 do you hear yourself?these "talents" are what?make us understand...
BloodyLisBeth 4 months ago
This is what makes the ancient historical claims so laughable - 100 to 300,000. No doubt it was a great victory but those figures are unsubstantiated and unobtainable. How on earth could they have even fed and watered such numbers in almost prehistoric times? More than likely that Alexander suffered circa 8,000 casualties and Darius 25,000 from a force maybe twice the size.
maynardgravy 2 years ago 14
"How on earth could they have even fed and watered such numbers in almost prehistoric times?"
Huh? When was water invented?
I'm pretty sure they had plenty then.
chris2002Rocklin 2 years ago
@maynardgravy I agree, historians severely exaggerate numbers, BUT, in all honesty to answer your question about ancient times, the persians had a system where they could have done this I think alot of people think they had around 200K men,
TJComer02 1 year ago
@maynardgravy They were right next to a river. You only need so much water to fight, it's not like they sat around drinking all day.
CorpusChristi83 1 year ago
@CorpusChristi83 ,
You would have to mobilise an army from scratch. No rivers all the time. Agriculture was backward, and what about lines of retreat?
Look, Napoleon took an army of 500,000 into Russia with modern agriculture and wagon trains and herds of cattle. At the great battle of Borodino where it was carnage, all day with cannon, sword and musket, both sides in total lost Circa 85,000 men, there is no way that these figures hold up, they are pure fantasy and ancient propaganda.
maynardgravy 1 year ago
@maynardgravy That's the thing, it could have had a like or something right next to it. Or he had people send water, you don't have to send people after the person before comes back you know.
Salien1999 1 year ago
@maynardgravy i disagree, most casualities in battle are cause when in rout, what you describe sounds more of a pyrhic victory than a decisive one. experts in books i've read suggest about 300 for alexander (which is actually alot) and about the same number of casualities as you describe for darius :)
hochmeisterjer 1 year ago
@maynardgravy In the battles,the ones they died were the ones they didn't have faith in Aleksandar,or the enemy that projected hate,and it returned hate to them as a mirror deflection.Aleksandaar was sent by god,and protected and lead by God.Who wanted peace,he gave them eace,who wanted war...he got it.
MomciloStojanovski 1 year ago
@maynardgravy Your post show leaves me to believe that you post in complete ignorance. Prehistoric times? Do you even know what "prehistoric" means? It means the time PRIOR to recorded history. The time of Alexander was NOT prehistoric nor was it almost prehistoric. Everything was recorded and documented.
deniart 11 months ago
@deniart Obviously he is wrong in not thinking that they had no way of feeding/watering their armies but at same time he has a valid point in that the numbers seems extremely exaggerated. I've read Plutarch's work extensively as well as other writers from the time. They always exaggerate events and battles and add an element of sensationalism to their stories. Additionally Plutarch being Greek would have a bias towards Alexander in regards to exaggerating the figures at any rate.
bigbossmann99 11 months ago
@maynardgravy Unlikely but it is possible. Napoleon's Grande Armee' at about 600,000 men foraged as they went, they all lived off of the land and didn't need to worry about supply lines. The art of foraging changed after the industrial revolution when it came to warfare I think, so having a large army back then wasn't completely unrealistic.
biagiotti2006 9 months ago
@maynardgravy Prehistoric times ?
330 BC was far from prehistoric, 40 000 BC was prehistoric.
How to feed and watered such a number ? Easy, it's called trade though land and sea. Plus add to that the lands were fertile and there were markets.
There were millions of people present during 400-300 BC.
Stop making numbers up, every historian during Alexander's time agree on the numbers.
Persia had Mesopotamia, a very fertile land where millions lived. They could have easily got 100k + soldiers
idricool 2 days ago
the book of Daniel was written after the fact. it was a fraud.
babylonkid01 2 years ago
That's not correct. Daniel was written c.536 b.c.e. Alexander's era was 356-323 b.c.e.
25MrRich 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This Battle is prophesied in the book of Daniel chapters7-8.
jn829 2 years ago
true, so much shorth life he have (33) but he did so much history ...
respect !
zelezo777 2 years ago
Such a short life i agree, but in such a short life he achieved so much, what i disliked after he died, it crumbled when it could have again flourished, if they had have rested the men and not poisoned his son and also conquering more instead of splitting it between themselves and falling into war.
YingandYang55 2 years ago
Wow...this guy gets better and better I swear eh...like sorry for the dead but...wow the ambition and the sheer strategy this guys got.....incredible...Love the story...He who wins the war writes history...so who knows how things really went down...but all's I know is...I want>>>WORLD PEACE :D Wa Alaikum Assalam
mzjwright 2 years ago
farts... lolololoolololololololoolloololollololooololoooololl rotfl
thebigcheese50 3 years ago
acording to the people in the beginning of this show these acounts are taken from the letters home of people who were there.
donnie2164 3 years ago
This account of gaugamela is different from all the others iv heard
HeadlessHorsemen883 3 years ago