Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Alexander the Great

  1. #21
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2211275]I'm sorry BD, but that is a horribly inaccurate crock of Poo my friend. Throughout History Civilians paid the price for War, both in terms of being killed if in/near a Warzone, and by being enslaved, worked to death, tortured, pillaged, etc. if their little slice of ground was lost to an enemy.

    Go tell all the Scots slaughtered by the English over the centuries that "Civilians being killed" is a modern invention. I think, if those long dead could talk, they'd tell you a vastly different story.

    Think the Romans didn't kill Civies? Really BD, get real.[/QUOTE]

    Refer to the links in the thread above, Warfish. I never said the "Roman's didn't kill civies", I said it was rare. By and large people like Julius Ceaser were all about destroying opponent armies and then adding territory to the greater Roman Empire.

    If you look at Alexander's conquests, by and large he left the cities he conquered untouched. Just installed a new Governor from his own army and then powered onto the next city or to the next army he had to destroy.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2212221]Refer to the links in the thread above, Warfish. I never said the "Roman's didn't kill civies", I said it was rare. By and large people like Julius Ceaser were all about destroying opponent armies and then adding territory to the greater Roman Empire.

    If you look at Alexander's conquests, by and large he left the cities he conquered untouched. Just installed a new Governor from his own army and then powered onto the next city or to the next army he had to destroy.[/QUOTE]

    The Knights Templar burned the library of Alexandria in order to set the world back hundreds of years.

    Game...set...match.

    I'm still crazier than all of you!

  3. #23
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [quote=Black Death;2212213]As usual, you haven't got an effing clue as to what you are dribbling on about.

    I've actually studied this topic reasonably extensively, so I do know what I'm talking about. Battles in ancient times were carried out on battlefields that were largely removed from where civilians were. They were between armies and not armies deliberately targetting civilians.

    But don't take it from me, take it from the world's leading expert on the topic, Professor Martin Shaw from the University of Sussex in the UK. In particular look at this article written by Shaw: [URL="http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/204shaw.htm"]link[/URL]

    Shaw's website is here: [URL="http://www.martinshaw.org/"]link[/URL]

    Of course, though, you being a plumber and all, you would know better than a university Professor.

    Somehow, yet again, you bring the word 'lib' into the argument despite the fact I'm not located in the USA and am not a 'lib' at all.

    I have given you various monikers in previous posts; for this thread I'll go back to calling you ****fa, because its damn clear you have **** Fa Brains.[/quote]

    yeah, you studied alright, facts that are indisputable are somehow
    disputable in your tiny mind
    it's hard to study with your head up your a$$

    and no i'm not a plumber,
    but plumbers are as respectful a profession as any
    even though the famous plumber here is sometimes a wisea$$
    you should hope to be a tenth as smart as he

    Gd knows you're just a student in a sub-basement somewhere

    but i'll give you a break for thinking so,
    since you wallow in sewers, intellectual and otherwise
    a need for good plumbing would immediately spring to your mind

    i'm more educated than you in every respect, kid,
    and your posts are full of inaccuracies.

    you wrote,

    [I]In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare - it certainly did happen, but it was rare[/I]

    bad enough-
    but you follow up with

    [I]Everyone else stayed in the village, wallowed in mud and picked at their pus-filled boils[/I]

    as if their lives ultimately went on as before wars, unaffected by
    the conquering hordes

    marauders taking/using/abusing all within reach
    as spoils of war and even indirectly spreading illness and death
    due to war epidemics prove that notion wrong

    furthermore you wrote,

    [I]In fact in some modern wars it is really only the civilians affected; the attacks by Al Qaida spring immediately to mind[/I]

    this is incorrect as well ,
    you can research all the attacks on US soldiers and ships by
    hezbollah, al qaeda and the like in your fetid sub-basement

    liberalism is a worldwide disease/mental illness...
    by american standards you are a lib
    doesnt matter where you live, i could care less
    Last edited by flushingjet; 11-16-2007 at 11:42 AM.

  4. #24
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet;2212849]yeah, you studied alright, facts that are indisputable are somehow
    disputable in your tiny mind
    it's hard to study with your head up your a$$

    and no i'm not a plumber,
    but plumbers are as respectful a profession as any
    even though the famous plumber here is sometimes a wisea$$
    you should hope to be a tenth as smart as he

    Gd knows you're just a student in a sub-basement somewhere

    but i'll give you a break for thinking so,
    since you wallow in sewers, intellectual and otherwise
    a need for good plumbing would immediately spring to your mind

    i'm more educated than you in every respect, kid,
    and your posts are full of inaccuracies.

    you wrote,

    [I]In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare - it certainly did happen, but it was rare[/I]

    bad enough-
    but you follow up with

    [I]Everyone else stayed in the village, wallowed in mud and picked at their pus-filled boils[/I]

    as if their lives ultimately went on as before wars, unaffected by
    the conquering hordes

    marauders taking/using/abusing all within reach
    as spoils of war and even indirectly spreading illness and death
    due to war epidemics prove that notion wrong

    furthermore you wrote,

    [I]In fact in some modern wars it is really only the civilians affected; the attacks by Al Qaida spring immediately to mind[/I]

    this is incorrect as well ,
    you can research all the attacks on US soldiers and ships by
    hezbollah, al qaeda and the like in your fetid sub-basement

    liberalism is a worldwide disease/mental illness...
    by american standards you are a lib
    doesnt matter where you live, i could care less[/QUOTE]

    The words 'really only' means mostly and it is mostly civilians affected by terror attacks. Seeing as civilians have been Al Qaida's stated target for many of their attacks, including 9/11, you can't contest this. Yes, Al Qaida have occasionally attacked miliatary targets, but they prefer the 'softer' targets of civilians because they are easier to get at with suicide bombers.

    As for the two earlier quotes; the second was a joke, but then you don't have a sense of humour so you didn't pick up on that one. The first is backed up, as I said, by the world's leading expert on this topic, an expert who you have conveniently ignored to again claim something which isn't true.

    As for the rest of your post; I aint a kid and am probably older than you; a lib here is someone who is a political conservative, not the opposite. At the moment I'm looking out of the second floor of my living quarters; there is a paddock below me with a creek running through it, it's a sunny day and around about 22 C at the moment; galahs, a colourful native bird here are squawking away in the distance. There is some AC DC pumping away on the stereo (Bon Scott era) downstairs, a stereo I'm going to switch off soon because I'm heading in town to sit outside, read the newspapers, look at the girls wandering past in their late-Spring-tit-showing-finery and have a coffee.

    Talking of galahs, to call someone a galah here means they are all squawk with no brains and blow me down if that doesn't describe you down to a 'T', ****fa.

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    715
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2203569]I do.

    He did, in fact kill, innocent people.

    Collateral damage is unavoidable in any war.


    Now...if you change the definition of "innocent"...then all bets are off.

    Take Hiroshima for example. Most people would assume that the majority of the old people, women, children and babies living in that city were "innocent". They would indeed be very wrong. Had an invasion of Japan ensued, those old people, women, children and babies would of fought the invading army landing on their shores. That would then change them from "innocent" to "enemy combatants".

    So, even though the old people, women, children and babies in Hiroshima were not expecting an attack...the bomb was dropped from a plane CLEARLY marked with military insignia. That also makes it OK.

    Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.[/QUOTE]



    Where is the evidence of collateral damage? Give me an example of Alexanders army raping and pillaging, especially killing infants. Your only generalizing here. Most of the people that Alexander conquered were better off afterwards, and his conquests ultimately gave rise to the Roman Empire.

    Ancient warfare was totally different than modern warfare is today , or even WWII! The Greek army under the Leadership of Alexander "The Great" sought to expand the empire of Greece and spread reason (Hellinize) throughout the world (Mostly Asia). The Greek Army was not instructed to kill, rape, or pillage! They would only meet the opposing army on the battlefield and conquer it. Afterwhich, the defeated country was left basically as it was before with only the top members of Alexanders army left to rule while the rest went off to another war.

    As for the bombings of WWII, don't single out Hiroshima and Nagasaki only. You have to include the English carpet bombing of Dresden Germany, and many other European cities in your diatribe to spread your agenda of hate against America. These carpet bombings by the Allies were targeted against civilians to undermine the moral of Germany, Italy, and Japan. They were very effective in killing men, women, and children indescriminately. It was not just the United States doing this either!

    Hitler tried to wipe out an entire race of people; whereas Alexander "The Great" sought to spread Greek logic and reason throughout Asia, while letting the conquered people keep their autonomy and religious practices wile paying tribute to Greece!

    There is no comparison between Hitler and Alexander "The Great", and 2000 years from now Hitler will still be seen as an evil delusional maniac!

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BugZyZuncle;2213590]Where is the evidence of collateral damage? Give me an example of Alexanders army raping and pillaging, especially killing infants...[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]If one takes Alexander as a model, then the principal ingredient is total ruthlessness. Rebellious cities were sacked, their inhabitants killed or enslaved, and savage reprisals avenged the few military setbacks After a reverse in the valley of the Zeravshan, Alexander retaliated with systematic devastation of the whole agricultural area as far as the desert and killed all suspected sympathizers. If not genocide, it was mass killing. Added to that, Alexander forcibly recruited tens of thousands of youths of military age, had them trained in Macedonian weaponry, and earmarked them for fighting in the West. They never returned, and in their place Alexander established a permanent holding army of Westerners and a network of garrison cities where a military elite of settlers lorded it over the native population. [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-165193289.html[/url]

    [QUOTE=BugZyZuncle]As for the bombings of WWII, don't single out Hiroshima and Nagasaki only. You have to include the English carpet bombing of Dresden Germany, and many other European cities in your diatribe to spread your agenda of hate against America. [/QUOTE]

    My agenda of hate?

    Please.

    Give me a break.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,153
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2210993]There are several red herrings on this thread.

    The move to what is now called 'degenerate war' really only became prevalent in the modern age - a degenerate war was one where civilians were deliberately targetted.

    In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare - it certainly did happen, but it was rare. There have been instances, like the Mongols sacking Kiev and killing everyone in that city they could lay their hands on, but most bloodshed was carried out on the battlefield and involved enemy combatants. Everyone else stayed in the village, wallowed in mud and picked at their pus-filled boils.

    [/QUOTE]
    BlackDeath - Have you ever heard of the term "sack" or "raze" a city. It usually happened after a siege. And basically everybody in the city was f*cked.

    The Greeks sacked Troy (ever read the Iliad ?)

    the Muslims did it often in India:

    "Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants."

    The Vikings killed anybody they could get their hands on:

    "Vikings conquered with terror. When they killed a man, they burned his living wife on top of his body. "

    ever hear of the sack of Rome in 1527 ?

    "After the execution of some 1,000 defenders, the pillage began. Churches and monasteries, but also palaces of prelates and cardinals, were destroyed and spoiled of any precious object. Nuns and other women were freely raped; men were tortured and killed. "

    But let's turn to my favorite, Genghis Khan:

    "Genghis Khan's principle was that every man who submits to his rule will be spared, but anyone who should refuse and oppose him by force of arms or dissension will be annihilated. In the same manner, he has all cities that resisted him transformed into a pile of rubble. Rich provinces are turned into deserts. All these cruelties have a purpose: military necessity, retaliation, terrorization. Human life has no special value for him, and he destroys it like we exterminate rats "

    Killing of civilians has been going on as long as there has been warfare. Do any of those historical incidents (which could be verified in countless sources) sound similar to your statements about non-combatants being spared in ancient warfare. Warfare is a nasty, brutish exercise. It always has been and it always will be.

    In the future you might not want to confuse facts and your political opinions so easily.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bethel, CT
    Posts
    11,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    alexander is considered SIGNIFICANT, because of the impact and result of his campaigns. He ranks up there in "greatness" as a leader and military strategist, but it was the result of his actions that make his indellible mark in the history books

    He exposed many cultures to each other. He more or less caused cultural diffusion on a global scale.

    "He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

    Following the unification of the multiple city-states of ancient Greece under the rule of his father, Philip II of Macedon (a labour Alexander had to repeat because the southern Greeks rebelled after Philip's death), Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire, including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as the borders of Punjab. Before his death, Alexander had already made plans to also turn west and conquer Europe. He also wanted to continue his march eastwards in order to find the end of the world, since his boyhood tutor Aristotle had told him tales about where the land ends and the Great Outer Sea begins. [B]Alexander integrated foreigners into his army, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion." He encouraged marriage between his army and foreigners, and practised it himself[/B]. After twelve years of constant military campaigning, Alexander died, possibly of malaria, West Nile virus, typhoid fever, viral encephalitis or the consequences of heavy drinking.[9][10]

    His conquests ushered in centuries of Greek settlement and cultural influence over distant areas, a period known as the Hellenistic Age, [B]a combination of Greek and Middle Eastern culture[/B]. Alexander himself lived on in the history and myth of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. After his death (and even during his life) his exploits inspired a literary tradition in which he appears as a legendary hero in the tradition of Achilles.






    hitler tried to eliminate a culture, big differtence

  9. #29
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=lageman4ever;2221196]BlackDeath - Have you ever heard of the term "sack" or "raze" a city. It usually happened after a siege. And basically everybody in the city was f*cked.

    The Greeks sacked Troy (ever read the Iliad ?)

    the Muslims did it often in India:

    "Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants."

    The Vikings killed anybody they could get their hands on:

    "Vikings conquered with terror. When they killed a man, they burned his living wife on top of his body. "

    ever hear of the sack of Rome in 1527 ?

    "After the execution of some 1,000 defenders, the pillage began. Churches and monasteries, but also palaces of prelates and cardinals, were destroyed and spoiled of any precious object. Nuns and other women were freely raped; men were tortured and killed. "

    But let's turn to my favorite, Genghis Khan:

    "Genghis Khan's principle was that every man who submits to his rule will be spared, but anyone who should refuse and oppose him by force of arms or dissension will be annihilated. In the same manner, he has all cities that resisted him transformed into a pile of rubble. Rich provinces are turned into deserts. All these cruelties have a purpose: military necessity, retaliation, terrorization. Human life has no special value for him, and he destroys it like we exterminate rats "

    Killing of civilians has been going on as long as there has been warfare. Do any of those historical incidents (which could be verified in countless sources) sound similar to your statements about non-combatants being spared in ancient warfare. Warfare is a nasty, brutish exercise. It always has been and it always will be.

    In the future you might not want to confuse facts and your political opinions so easily.[/QUOTE]

    My perspective on this is not a "political opinion" - and I never said that attacks on civilians never happened in ancient times, and in fact if you go back over my posts on this thread I actually have given at least one example of where an attack on civilians happened in pre-modern times - the annihilation of the city of Kiev by the Mongols. My perspective is that attacks on civilians was relatively rare in pre-modern times; certainly rare compared to today's warfare.

    What I am claiming here is that in modern warfare attacks on civilians happens in almost every war today - which is distinctly unlike warfare in pre-modern times in which civilians were [I]only sometimes[/I] affected. This became especially prevalent in World War 2 in which such acts as the bombing of London, the bombing of Dresden and the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured. The same thing happened in Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, in wars in Africa and skirmishes in South and Latin America during the 20th century.....terrorist attacks on civilians in the US on September the 11th are also examples of warfare affecting civilian populations.

    Most of the 'great battles' of pre-modern times were carried out on battlefields removed from civilian populations; in modern times, because civilian populations are seen as vital to any 'war effort' they are now attacked as well as sthe oldiers in the armies. Clauswitz, probably the greatest theorist on war in the last 300 years, called this move to attacking civilians the move to 'total war', as in everyone is affected by this type of war in some way.

    As I said, Martin Shaw is the world's leading expert on this and he calls this 'degenerate war', because war has now degenerated to attacks on what amount to innocent people. War these days entails the 'necessary' death of civilians which it never did in pre-modern times - the deaths of civilians in pre-modern times was relatively isolated and only happened some of the time.

    It is important to note that what I'm saying here has nothing to do with politics; no matter how good or bad the cause, war these days almost always involves civilian death - you can have the most righteous cause in the world for going to war and still civilians will be killed today. Take, for instance, the attack on Falujah in the current Iraq War (and, yes, I still think Iraq is a war zone)

    As for Alexander, he certainly engaged in reprisal slaughtering of civilian populations during his conquests - the Zoastrian religion which was the religion of Persia call him Alexander the Killer, or something similar - but more often than not he let the civilian populations live provided they submitted themselves to his rule.
    Last edited by Soberphobia; 11-22-2007 at 06:02 AM.

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    By the way, Lageman: the 20th century saw the greatest numbers of people killled in warfare in history; in fact more people were killed by warfare in the 20th century than by warfare in all other centuries of history combined. You can cite as many sacking or razings you can name pre-modern times and they come nowhere near the numbers of death or suffering caused by the ferocious and savage battles like that at Stalingrad or at the Somme.

    One reason for this is the technology of warfare, which has become much more efficient at killing people, and because this technology is produced by civilian populations, these civilians have become targets of war - hence the bombing of Dresden etc.

    In war today, civilians are almost always affected; you can't say that about all wars in pre-modern times.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,190
    Post Thanks / Like
    Samwise,

    You've got it right. Alexander was considered "great" not only for his brilliance as a battlefield tactician but perhaps even more so because he was a master statesman who was ahead of his time. That said, I'm sure that he killed his fair share and more of innovent people.

    It's only Oliver Stone, though, that tried to turn him into Tom Brady.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2209922]Wow Plumber, you sure have become a real gurn'in wuss of late man.

    So "God" doesn't like Dead Babies, eh? Well, then perhaps God should get off his lazy butt and do something about it eh?

    I won't hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

    He does.....its called us.

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2212221]Refer to the links in the thread above, Warfish. I never said the "Roman's didn't kill civies", I said it was rare. By and large people like Julius Ceaser were all about destroying opponent armies and then adding territory to the greater Roman Empire.

    If you look at Alexander's conquests, by and large he left the cities he conquered untouched. Just installed a new Governor from his own army and then powered onto the next city or to the next army he had to destroy.[/QUOTE]

    Unless you include one of the favorite pastimes of the early Romans....feeding the poor and the Christians to the Lions...

  14. #34
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2223283]Unless you include one of the favorite pastimes of the early Romans....feeding the poor and the Christians to the Lions...[/QUOTE]

    Christians were persecuted only for a period of the total time of the Roman Empire - though in some of those periods the persecution was indeed extremely savage, especially during that time known as the 'Great Persecution'.

    The persecution of the Christians really occured during the middle and late times of the Roman Empire, not during the early Roman Empire, because during the early Roman Empire there were no such thing as Christianity.

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2223468]Christians were persecuted only for a period of the total time of the Roman Empire - though in some of those periods the persecution was indeed extremely savage, especially during that time known as the 'Great Persecution'.

    The persecution of the Christians really occured during the middle and late times of the Roman Empire, not during the early Roman Empire, because during the early Roman Empire there were no such thing as Christianity.[/QUOTE]

    Yup, I know....

    But they just didn't feed Christians to the lions....it was one way to get rid of the poor and excess slaves...

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2223970]Yup, I know....

    But they just didn't feed Christians to the lions....it was one way to get rid of the poor and excess slaves...[/QUOTE]

    I see what you are getting at; I am not claiming that times were 'better' back in olden times....that would be a ridiculous claim. What I'm saying is that the nature of war has changed from pre-modern to modern times. Now war almost always entails the deaths of civilians; in pre-modern times that wasn't the case.

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2224190]I see what you are getting at; I am not claiming that times were 'better' back in olden times....that would be a ridiculous claim. What I'm saying is that the nature of war has changed from pre-modern to modern times. Now war almost always entails the deaths of civilians; in pre-modern times that wasn't the case.[/QUOTE]

    I think in many cases is the way wars were done....One side lines up on one side of a field, the other on the opposite. Then they march toward each other and start swinging...

    So, yeah, there is definitely more civilians in the line of fire when the battle covers a countryside.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2223970]Yup, I know....

    But they just didn't feed Christians to the lions....it was one way to get rid of the poor and excess slaves...[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/20/cody2.jpg[/IMG]

    ;)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us