Hi everyone, I was the historian and scriptwriter for this video, hope you all enjoyed it! If you've got any questions or feedback for me, please do leave them below and I'll do my best to get around to them! Happy New Years!
Its a great work of art my good sir. Congratulations. Whats your opinion on "Alexander han nothing to do with Greece, he was a Macedonian conqueror"?. No offence,sir
@@thinkpolhub That is a lot of questions! Most of these are unanswerable from a factual perspective, but I’ll give my thoughts on them! Cause of death: As the video (hopefully) makes this clear, this is basically unanswerable: the historical record is so polluted by propaganda that it’s impossible to say what the truth is with certainty. My own gut instinct (and it is just a feeling, not a fact) is that he died of natural causes, probably a combination of malria, drink and his lung wound. I think that people don’t like to think of such a HUGE character as Alexander dying so boringly, but sometimes, that’s just how it went. Kings die like peasants.
@@thinkpolhub Alexander’s Tomb: As you say, basically unknown, but I personally am VERY interested in Limneos-Papakosta’s recent findings (worth googling if you’re interested), as well as the possibility of revisiting the work of Souvaltzi, which would place the tomb around Siwa.
@@thinkpolhub Ego vs Idealism: I don’t know how useful this kind of dichotomy. Isn’t everyone motivated by both forces to some degree? How can one separate one from the other? Is it not possible that Alexander was an idealistic egotistic? Someone who desperately craved fame, glory and power, but who wanted those things because they genuinely thought that they were improving their world? I think Alexander falls into that kind of category to me. He did some terrible, awful things and could be brutal, but I think his genuine motivation was to create a blended world of East and West, more advanced and prosperous than before…which he would, of course, be the ruler of lol.
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
@@Blastizor I take it you have a theory on JFK,the moon landings and of course the COVID debacle😂. The funny thing is, you could be right, however, it is very likely Alexander was as good a military leader as is written.....whether you can stomach that or not 👍
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
@@KingsandGenerals really good choice and a very interesting story, mine is probably perdiccas. I know it's a weird choice but he was the only one to really keep the empire together, even if it was only for a moment.
I literally just finished the first 3 hour part from 6 days ago. I stood up to make food, and now as I'm eating it, there's part 2 ready for me. Thanks so much, guys! Keep up the good work, and happy 2024🎉
This channel represents one of RUclips's most undeservedly redeeming qualities, and puts equivalent documentaries formerly found in the realm of legacy media, in places like the Discovery and History channels to shame in the way it delivers educational material of remarkable scope and meticulous detail in such immersively compelling form. I am, quite frankly, somewhat bewildered by how much effort the composition of this two-part series alone must surely have required.
This was one of my favorite videos in a while, I only wish you could've spent some time at the end talking about his tomb and the mystery around that, amazing job and thank you!
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
Fantastic series! Bravo to all involved! Hard to believe that such a person ever truly existed. What’s even more astonishing is that just six months ago marked the anniversary of Alexander’s death more than a millennia ago. Just goes to show how impactful one’s legacy has and continues to have. Looking forward to the Wars of the Diadochi series. Happy New Year everyone!
Agree that its hard to believe such a man existed but just wanted to say : 6 months ago was what, the 2346th anniversary since his death? Not really a noteworthy number, or noteworthy that that we are at the opposite end of the year to the anniversary haha. Also a lot more than a millennia ago. 😅
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
@@Blastizor And you talk as if the greeks were united lolllllll, even the so called "greeks" hated Alexander, and firstly the greeks were never united so you using the term "greek" is invalid, just as invalid as using the term "indians" as if they were united for almost most of their entire history. the Indian and greek nationality wasnt even a thing until in the 1800's for the greek and 1900's for the indians, So come back to me when you have a better argument without using the term "Greeks" and "Indians"
@@Blastizor Lastly, Alexander built 2 citites on both banks of the Hydaspes river after he won the battle of Hydaspes, those 2 citites were Bucephalia and Nicaea, and Bucephalia, modern day phalia pakistan is still inhabited by people to this day, if that isnt proof enough that he won idk what is for you
@@mithridates3152 Greeks : we fought a great king he is tall dangerous blah blah blah Indian kings : yeah we put a gaurd post there to watch locust attack on fields Indian kings called porus : did something happen Porus to indian kings :nothing sir I fought a bunch of people thats have ur meal sir Mean while in Takshsila Scholars : what are those sounds Gaurds : porus is playing with swords with some white bandits dont worry sir write ur books This would have happened . even gaurds didnt considered that as battle thats they didnt mention it in history 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Many would take the name "The Great," from Pompey to Tsar Peter, but nobody, and i mean NOBODY, will ever deserve the title "The Great" more than Alexander III of Macedonia; sure his legacy is complicated and his domain went to hell after his death, but in his short life, no one did, and will ever do more than him, RIP Alexander, the GOAT Edit: changing to alexander iii
Really? Not even Cyrus the great or Darius the great? Created the templates for super powers to exist, and their dynasty lasted until Alexander the great hundreds of years later. Alexander was definitely great, but there are many examples of individuals who deserve such a name.
This Might Be Interesting: Alexander the Great launched what is now known as the Cophen Campaign, the first stage of his invasion, between May 327 and March 326 BCE. By taking fortresses of the Aspasioi, Guraeans, and Assakenoi tribes in the Panjkora (Dir) and Swat valleys of modern Pakistan and the Kunar valley of modern Afghanistan, he hoped to secure his line of communication. Alexander the Great defeated the Aspasians first, capturing their cities after a series of fierce battles in which he and his general Ptolemy were both injured, though Ptolemy also killed the Apasian king.
If the author of the pamphlet knew who of the attendees were guilty and who weren't, then it seems that the author was one of the conspirators that later felt guilt for his participation in Alexander's poisoning. I wish that his tomb and remains are found.
That was awesome work, u should be very proud!! I can't imagine taking on such an enormous task! Loaded with so many facts, but never did it get boring. The style of storytelling kept me hooked! It was so easy to listen and just close my eyes and watch it play out like a movie in my head!! Thank you!!!
If he truly did say ''to the strongest'' I personally think it was said so that he could destroy the empire and secure his immortality. If they all think they're the strongest, they'll all fight for it and destroy themselves; ensuring no one will overshadow his legacy. Unlikely for sure, but a good way for him to ensure his legacy. Thanks for the video.
You know the old “if you could invite anyone dead or alive to a dinner party” question? This guy should be on top of everyone’s list! He’d have some stories to tell…😂
Greek here, as much as i would find that interesting. That's a big no from my part. This man was believing himself to be a chosen diety, had also a bad temper when drunk. Paranoia too! He's gonna stab someone again.
Hi, K&G. In this New Year I request you to make mega documentaries on the following topics(if possible). It is a long list: 1. Gymnasiums in Ancient Greece 2. Mongol Generals 3. Role of women in Mongol Society 4. Austro-Hungarian Empire 5. Northern Crusades 6. Bolshevik Revolution 7. Russian Civil War 8. Mongol Khanates: Golden Horde, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate and Khanate of Kublai Khan 9. How England incorporated Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales into it 10. Irish Civil War 11. The Great Dutch Revolt(Eighty Years War) 12. French Wars of Religion 13. Peninsular War 14. Pre-Columbine America 15. Balkan Wars 16. Russian Czars: From Best to Worst 17. War of Austrian Succession 18. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 19. Chola Empire 20. Swedish Wars 21. Khanates after the demise of the Golden Horde 22. First and Second Reich 23. Spanish Civil War 24. Spanish Empire 25. Age of Exploration 26. Industrial Revolution 27. Indian Revolt of 1857 28. Maratha Empire 29. Dutch Empire 30. Danish Empire 31. Shia Caliphates 31. Crimean War 32. Franco-Prussian War 33. Sassanid Kings and Generals 34. Achaemenian Kings and Generals 35. Three Kingdoms of Korea 36. Medieval Japan
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 Ancient Hindu texts like the Vedas, the Puranas and the Shatapatha Brahmana explicitly mention that the involvement of the Shudras in Vedic rituals is essential, and that reverence to the lower classes pleases God. The Shukla Yajurveda (16.27) says: ‘Homage to you carpenters and to you chariot makers, homage. Homage to you potters and to you blacksmiths, homage. Homage to you boatmen and to you Punjishthas, homage. Homage to you dog-leaders and to you hunters, homage. Another hymn (18.48) from the same Veda says: ‘O Lord! Please fill the Brahmanas with light, the Kshatriyas with light, the Vaishyas with light and the Shudras with light; and in me fill the same light.’ It is a measure of the enlightened nature of Indian society that it accorded great respect to the working class. In contrast, most other civilisations treated labourers and agriculturists as property. In Athens, only 10 per cent of the population had the vote; the majority were slaves. The ‘Holy’ Bible is rampant with slavery. Not one Biblical figure, including Jesus or St. Paul, is recorded as saying anything against slavery, which was an integral part of life of Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during those times. Take this passage from the Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1-2: ‘All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing (Christian) masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers (Christians). Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.’ On the other hand, ancient Indian history is littered with examples of men who crossed the great divide. Take Veda Vyasa, who wrote the Mahabharata: his mother was a fisherwoman. Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana, was a Dalit in today’s parlance. Several celebrated rishis (seers) hailed from lower castes - Jabali’s mother was what one would call a prostitute today. Aitareya, who wrote the Aitareya Upanishad, was born of a Shudra woman. Parashara, the revered law-giver, was the son of a Chandala, the lowest of the Shudras. Vishwamitra was not a Brahmin but a Kshatriya. Again, Saint Thiruvalluvar, who wrote the Thirukural, was a weaver. Kabir, Surdas, Ramdas and Tukaram, who are revered as saints, came from the humblest echelons of Hindu society. Unlike Jesus, who had to be whitened and given blond hair in order to be accepted as the son of god by Europeans, Indian saints did not have to undergo any cosmetic surgery to be accepted by the masses. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says: ‘Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues which are the cause of auspiciousness. Even a Chandala observing the vow is considered a Brahmin by the gods.’ The great Bhim Rao Ambedkar observed that caste was absent in early Indian society. In a speech delivered on May 9, 1916 at Columbia University, New York, on the subject, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, Amedkar said: ‘Society is always composed of classes. It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class conflict, but existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this generalisation in mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste.’ To be sure, while the jati - the actual Indian word for social groups - divide may not have been as deep as it is today, crossing the chasm may have been common. In his memoirs Indika, Megasthenes (300 BCE), the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, identifies seven groups - Philosophers, Agriculturists, Herdsmen, Artisans, Soldiers, Inspector and Councillors - within Indian society, without ranking them in any way. The Philosophers are held in estimation as the top group notwithstanding their number is the smallest. They performed yajnas and funerals, and the Brahmins among them married and had children but lived a simple life. This suggests that Brahmins were in no way superior or considered superior. They just performed a very important role and were respected for their nobility which came from their learning and penance. ‘And it is a law that if any one of them be three times convicted of falsehood, he shall be doomed to silence during life; but the upright they exonerate from tax and tribute.’ The second division is the Agriculturists, who are the ‘most numerous and worthy’. This suggests they were not considered inferior to any other group. They pursue their occupation free from military duties and fear; neither concerning themselves with civil, nor public, nor indeed any other business. The third rank is that of the Shepherds and Hunters, to whom alone it is lawful to hunt, graze, and sell cattle, for which they give a premium and stipend. For ridding the land also, of wild beasts and birds which destroy the grain, they are entitled to a portion of corn from the king, and lead a wandering life, living in tents. The fourth rank is that of the Artisans and Innkeepers, and bodily Labourers of all kinds, of whom some bring tribute, or, instead of it, perform stated service on the public works. But the manufacturers of arms and builders of ships are entitled to pay and sustenance from the king, for they work only for him. The fifth group is the Military, who, when disengaged, spend the rest of their time at ease, in stations or barracks assigned them by the king, so that, whenever occasion may require, they may be ready to march forth directly, carrying with them nothing else than their bodies. The sixth rank consists of the Inspectors, whose business it is to pry into all matters that are carried on, and report them privately to the king, for which purpose in the towns they employ courtesans, and camp-followers in the camp. They are chosen from the most upright and honourable men. Ranked seventh are the Councillors and Assessors of the king, by whom the government, and laws, and administration are conducted. Megasthenes says this is among the smallest groups but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers, of the state, and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class. As we can see, army generals - who formally belonged to a separate group - were taken from among the Councillors. Conceptions of caste, Megasthenes suggests, were much more fluid than today. Emperor Chandragupta Maurya himself was of mixed descent. Hope this disperse your ignorance!!!
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 Caste system and Sati are not pratha, dumbo. Castes aka Jaatis are social structures. Sati was a rare practice of voluntary deaths committed by individual men and women of the upper echelon of the Indic society. It was basically Indian version of 'seppuku' kinda practice..
Alexander have to be considered the greatest general / King in history when your generals becomes Kings and establish dynasties in they own right when usually it blood ties that get you a pathway to the 👑
I love your videos all of them and i watch everything you put out by far the best and most informative youtube channel out there. Wish i could save your videos for deployment lol. Happy new years !
Im Greek and we are taught that he wanted to conquer India but his army didnt , they were too exhausted and for so much time away from home they wanted to return back to Greece although many never did eventually.
Thank you, K&G, for this long video, and for a year full of great historical content. I was wondering, after covering Alexander the Great, if you would revisit the period of the Diadochi Wars? I'm sure you could do better videos, and also, the period goes further that 302 BC. Thanks again for the great year! Cheers.
Porus’s height of 7 feet tall seems far fetched but according to Greek and Roman sources from that time period , South Asian people were the tallest race of people with men on avg being 5’10 feet tall.
He would have been massively taller than most men greeks had ever seen. My guess he could have been around 6'4-6'7 considering 7 feet is too damn tall to even walk around and fight while Porus fought in the battlefield along his men
@@pranayghosh4413 Alexander and his army modern studies believe were kinda in the 5'3-6 range, therefore ofc a 6'4-6 guy with a huge frame will seem as a giant but yeah 7ft is exaggerated most likely, Peter The Great was pretty close tho so it might be not impossible
It depends of the area. Pahadis(mountain folk) in India are known to be very tall guys, taller even by world standards. The tallest dude in the world is from nepal. Alexander came to Indian subcontinent in areas that are adjacent. So its not impossible.
One of the greatest conquerors, Alexander the Great, has been the focus of considerable conjecture, and the question of whether or not he was gay remains one of the most contentious. According to several historians, Alexander had a great affinity for men; however, others believe that this is a result of a misreading of the historical record. Alexander’s close ties with men like Hephaestion and Bagoas have been interpreted by some as proof of his homosexuality, while others have argued that they were merely close companions. Another common argument against Alexander’s claimed homosexuality is that he was married many times to different women and had at least one child from them, Alexander IV. That is why whether Alexander the Great was gay or not is still an open question today. Throughout his life, Alexander the Great is said to have had a number of close relationships with men. Hephaestion, Alexander’s closest friend and confidant, stood out among these friendships. It was said that Hephaestion and Alexander had been close since they were kids, almost like brothers. Alexander was so devastated by Hephaestion’s death that he advocated worshipping him as a god. Before Plutarch and Arrian, the Roman historian Curtius authored The History of Alexander in the first century AD where he discussed Alexander and Hephaestion in his writings. According to Curtius, “Hephaestion was by far the dearest of the king’s [Alexander’s] friends; he had been brought up with Alexander and shared all his secrets. No other person was privileged to advise the king as candidly as he did, and yet he exercised that privilege in such a way that it seemed granted by Alexander rather than claimed by Hephaestion.” Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, 3.12.16. Hephaestion is later compared to a young man called Euxenippus by Curtius in Book 7. Some researchers think he was the Persian eunuch that Alexander personally liked, Bagoas: Therefore, he [Alexander] received the envoys of the Sacae courteously and gave them Euxenippus; to accompany them; he was still very young and a favorite of the king [Alexander] because of his youthful beauty, but although in handsome appearance he was equal to Hephaestion, he was not his match in a charm which was indeed not manly. Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander, Volume II: Books 6-10. Curtius here appears to be making a reference to the possible sexual motivations for Alexander’s preference for Hephaestion over Euxenippus. And perhaps this could be why Alexander found Hephaestion’s death so devastating. Curtius was cautious in describing the nature of the connection between Alexander and Hephaestion. Perhaps it was because in the 4th century BC Greece, the concept of sexual intercourse between adult males was not commonly tolerated. Diodorus Siculus, a historian from Sicily, lived between 90 and 30 BC. Despite living two centuries after Alexander, he is still one of the closest ancient historians to the time period of Alexander’s life. The Macedonian general Craterus was one of the most devoted and loyal friends of Alexander, but according to Diodorus, Craterus was merely “king-loving” (philbasileus), while Hephaestion was “Alexander-loving” (philalexandros). Alexander threw himself into preparations for the burial of Hephaestion. He showed such zeal about the funeral that… it left no possibility for anything greater in later ages… …when one of the companions said that Craterus was loved no less than Hephaestion, Alexander had answered that Craterus was king-loving, but Hephaestion was Alexander-loving. Diodorus. 17.114.(1-2) After Hephaestion passed away at Ecbatana due to fever, it was a blow to Alexander, during which he refused to eat or drink and spent three days flat on the ground in sorrow. The chroniclers of the past often sought to portray Alexander the Great in a positive light while overlooking any perceived “shortcomings” he may have had. This includes whether Alexander the Great was gay. It’s still worth noting that this is not concrete evidence to suggest that Alexander and Hephaestion had a romantic or homosexual relationship. A eunuch and Persian, Bagoas the Younger was another individual Alexander had a close friendship with. Allegedly romantically involved, Bagoas worked as Alexander’s personal attendant and was designated a courtier. Following the victory, Bagoas the Younger was presented to Alexander the Great by King Darius III’s court of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. Typical of ancient Greek culture, Alexander had a liking for young boys, and Bagoas soon became his closest confidant. According to Plutarch, the Macedonians once cheered to bade Alexander kiss Bagoas in a public event: We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander’s side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly. Plutarch - Life of Alexander (Part 7 of 7) As counterevidence to the claim that Alexander was gay, many point to his many marriages to women and the children he had with them. Over the course of his brief life, Alexander married Roxana, Stateira, and Parysatis. And it’s not 100% definite that all of them were committed partners of his. Alexander’s sole known child, Alexander IV, was born to his Bactrian wife, Roxana, after his death in 323 BC. Historians have speculated that Stateira could have been pregnant when she died. Males often had intimate, sexual connections with other men in ancient Greek society. Such pairings weren’t automatically seen as signs of gay or bisexual orientation, but rather as a natural part of life. Because of this, it’s crucial to think about how the ideas and customs of the period affected Alexander’s personal connections. These close friendships often characterized ancient Greek society, and that’s why there wasn’t always sexual tension between them. Historical accounts indicate that Alexander had a voracious sexual appetite and a constant presence of women in his life. As he grew older, he reportedly indulged in the company of concubines every night. In conclusion, it is impossible to state with certainty whether or not Alexander the Great was gay or even bisexual, despite evidence suggesting he had intimate ties with men. Alexander’s sexuality is still a mystery and a hotly disputed issue among academics.
Dude Alexander liked men more than woman. This is blatantly clear. He had little interest in woman except at times. Being bi sexual was very common. Gay didn't exist in the Greek culture. There is no word for it. Why does it matter anyway who cares
This was extraordinary guys. Thank you so much for this. It is interesting to wonder exactly what happened to Alexander in the end. I very much look forward to the series on his successors! Thank you again! God be with you out there everybody! ✝️ :)
Alexander the Great was not just a conqueror. His purpose was to exchange values and knowledge, resulting in the prevalence of Greek civilization and the creation of the Hellenistic era. Scientific sequence in the campaign of Alexander the Great: Doctors: Drakon ,Glaukias , Kritodemos, Filippo the acarnanian ,and Ippoktates son of Ippocrate. Historians,Topographers: Aristovoulos kassandrephs , Kallisthenes nephew of Aristoteles. Painters, poets, musicians: Athenodoros from Thessaly ,Lykon ,Apelles ,Lysippos,Aristonikos. Fortune tellers , Prophets : Aristandros , Kleomenes from Sparta.
Great detail in this video! It's a shame that Indians deny that this battle happened.. They should be proud of their Helenic ties! There were hundredths of Greek settlements in India after Alexander's battle with Porus! Quite amazing stuff!
These 2 long Alexander the Great vids you guys made...amazing! If only they'd been around in the 90s when I was writing my high school history research paper on him.
@njshah4845 Alexander's army was more exhausted than anything. Ultimately, we don't know how such an invasion would go, but don't count out Alexander with numbers alone
@@zombieoverlord5173Do you even know how large the Nanda army was. It’s just impossible he would’ve won there, even if he tried to go into India he would’ve died due to diseases there.
I visited Alexander the Great’s throne where he took his last breath in Iraq back in 2003 in the city of Babylon. I fought in OIF as a U.S. Marine &I was lucky few who had a chance to see this ancient city and see his throne. It was raised above the ground by about 4 feet with a boxy shape and composed of lots of brown clay bricks and not in a good shape but still able to see it was once a throne. I took pictures of it and still treasure it. I understand Babylon was built over and over so I'm unsure of the accuracy of it. I did see the former grounds of the Tower of Babel, the hanging garden, a lion statue with human figure below the lion which is mentioned in the book of the Bible, the first asphalt road, the first wine cellar to keep it cool, and map of Garden of Eden hung on the wall which was located near Marsh arab used to reside until Saddam used chemical warfare on them and murdered them all.
Here come the American hero that saved people from saddam. Its boils my blood that you stepped into my land and walked into places that most of Iraqis including me never reached.
Could the pamphlet be written by someone who was part of the assassination and the guilt led him to publish the thruth (could you make a video that focuses on the end of Sparta i am struggling to find how the city ended)
im impressed with the work on this video its almost as impressive as the subject matter Alexander The Great i loved this two part struggled to keep focus on 2nd part i paused rewinded a few times but that was because i was engaged and interested im in awe of this man alexander who lived such an awesome life yes it was brutal but he was impressive nevertheless thanks for such a great watch and a glance into history i need to watch more of this channel for sure thank you
Most maps of Alexander's conquests show the battles of Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela, and Hydaspes, which a little attention paid to Greek revolts, Tyre, and the Persian. The fact that Alexander had so many battles against so many different foes - regular large armies, forts and cities, guerilla fighters - show how brilliant he. He's like, sending people to climb up mountains, crossing rivers in the pouring rain, charging into a hail of arrows, fighting elephants. This dude, if half the stuff about him is true, is like the Action Hero of the Ancient world. Son of Heracles? Maybe. And his army were probably one of the best in history.
Minus everything else on the battlefield he was a straight badass. How many battles in what a little over a decade? 16-18 when he stormed in the frontlines to take a castle for his dad. Theres a reason julius ceasar put his head on alexander the greats statue.
Selucus probably had an eye on his wife and asked Alexander if she would be his "given wife" or vice versa, she chose him. I doubt it was arranged hence the couple lasted the longest and were happy.
In india we say jo jeeta wahi sikander. Translation: Alexander is he who wins, though i dont how how old the saying is, It might be possible it started from that era only because of his undefeated conquest. Great ruler alexander the great 🇬🇷💪
Defeating small kingdoms in nkrth west india was one thing. A direct faceoff with the mighty nanda empire of patliputra and Magadha was another. He was better advised not to have taken them on.
The Persian empire was the greatest empire the world had ever seen up to that point in history, controlling 40% of the worlds population, and Alexander crushed it. The guy marched his army for 15 straight years and never lost a battle. You're crazy if you think the Nanda empire, which was overthrown a year later, would have withstood him.
@@VeniVidiVomui what are sources that made you claim 40 percent population control . also why are we to believe only greek or european historian side , we can have a differing opinion to what west believes .
alexander already handed greatest military from his father aganist one struggling empire wasn't at their peak rueld by bad leader darius who never fought battle in his life n he ran away from battles
@@PutlerHuyIo Indian sources may not exist because Puru may be some small time chieftain not worthy of mention . Had this battle had any significance in India it surely would have been recorded in the Takshashila University few miles down the location of battle of Hydespas. Takshashila was one of the biggest universities in the world and scholars and students used to come there from allover the region -all the way up to China. Surely there would have been some record from them from somewhere. Instead there is absolutely no mention of this so called battle in India. Instead we only have greek record so its difficult to believe everything they said about Alexander.
@@netaji-thebritishslayer not really, if he had beaten by porus he wouldn't have gone further - this itself came from many other sources Including Persian texts as well. The location of towns and cities he captured further after the war with porus was actually mentioned by the people living there back then. Only and only indian sources (which came way after) claims that Alexander lost and went back, which is a huge overstatement, a narration which started to exist in modern times just based on guesses. It's always been a fact that he went back because of the soldiers being so far, with weapons rusting and age. It's also a known fact throughout the entire asian region that celebrated his way back. A defeated king would never do that
It is unbelievably clear that Alexander did not utter "to the strongest". His most famous line not being said by him is not proof he was assassinated but it is proof of character assassination. There is no way that a man who had barely survived his own succession crisis and struggled with the aftermath of living in his father's shadow after his father's death for the rest of his life would not know about what happens to empires without clear succession. Furthermore, he was no idiot in matters of state and history and was tutored by none other than Aristotle himself who definitely would have taught him the need for succession to be clear. These realities are often tried to be thrown away by playing into Alexander's brashness and ego, but bravery on the battlefield doesn't mean selfish and short-sighted, it means the opposite. We know how he felt about matrimony. He only took 2 wives and loved his first so much that he did despite everyone in his kingdom telling him not to and doubled down on it by paying for his men and officers to do the same. Ceasar didn't write his own son into his will, but Ceasar already had a wife by the time he married Cleopatra and wanted to rule back in the west in Rome. Alexander was a young man who's first wife could have been anyone in the known world and wanted to rule in the new kingdom that he conquered in the East. I am certain he didn't want anyone other than one of his sons from either of his wives to rule. The diaries don't mention a doctor but do mention a lawyer for his will. They can't be anything other than false. The pamphlet being written by literally anyone with a pen up to a hundred years after the events and claiming knowledge of his intimate circle is as true as me writing a story about what went on Hitler's bunker 80 years ago at the end of WWII. I can tell you some names of conspirators and I think treachery was involved and my story can be presumed to have it's popularity in my own time be proportional to how operatic and dramatic as I make the story. So the pamphlet is false. Thus, no one knows what happened. It's likely that, assasination or not, even those in the inner circle don't know exactly what happened. What's clear to me is that his death was used to...what's the phrase..."clean house". Even in the pamphlet that is handed down to us, Selucid and Ptolemy are mentioned as not being conspirators. How convenient. Both tales are a coverup. The pamphlet was clearly written knowing of the diaries version and is a response to that. Both versions mention the drinking party, and name the same companion's house on the same night, and both versions have him uttering the words. The pamphlet version can therefore be reasoned to be silent on the days marked with "?" in the video, because the pamphlet wasn't written by a person with knowledge of the inner circle but a playright not unlike shakespeare using the diaries to construct a dramatic narrative that then becomes a condensed and popular amalgamation of the rumors that were cirulating by the grandchildren of the Diodochi Wars. Those children wouldn't be compelled by any need to portray Alexander as being familial or expressing affection for a dynasty that was already lost to them and instead would have disagreed with particular nobles among their grandparents, espicially those blamed in the pamphlet like Antipatter and Cassander whose own attempts at dynasty were long dead, but sought to honor those like Ptolomey and Seulicid whose empires were still alive at the writing of the rumors, so would have seen no problem in having Alexander be the author of his own dynasty's dissolution. The truth can never be known, but we are blessed with 2 versions that agree on some points and disagree on others so we can do the compare and contrast that this video does. The key is looking at the 3 points that are identical. Started on same night, at same guy's house, and ended with him saying the same words. Where they differ is just as critical. We know the accidental version came first, written by the inner circle, and the conspiracy version came up to 3 generations later written anonymously and was popular contemporaneously or it wouldn't have been included hundreds of years later in the Romance. That tells us, even the grandchildren of the nobles didn't believe the accidental, nothing to see here, version of events. They probably could have surmised that Alexander didn't have his first drinking partying on June 1st 423BC at Media's house, nor that Alexander drank SOOOOOO MUCH that night that even him, an experienced, Macedonian drinker, couldn't survive with all the help of an entire continent. He who had survived head wounds, arrows piercing every limb and lung, and BRAGGED about his entire body being full of scars on the front, could die from a bottle on a random night at a friend's house. His own soldiers didn't believe it IN BOTH TALES THEMSELVES! The fac that both tales have the nobles trying to keep Alexander from his men, is itself nothing more than an admission of guilt. This king was no pampered aristocrat in an ivory tower. He lived with his men. LIVED WITH THEM. Fought with them. He had to do nothing more than come out of his tent to speak to them on several occaisions and on for 8 nights following a random friend's house drinking party he was kept secluded from them, when previously he had gone a mere 2 or 3 nights tops without speaking to them on campaign before either he or they relented? The tale in the diaries is the nobles' and the tale in the pamphlet is the nobles' grandchildren. Assassinated or no, the nobles were up to no good before, during and after his death, and he never said "to the strongest". Are we to believe that none of his men asked him any questions on succession, and it was only in his private quarters surrounded by nobles that benefit from this statement that he suddenly was asked this and answered? If Alexander was truly as egotistical and superficial as to doom his own dynasty for the sake of a single bravadocious line, don't you think he would have said it in front of at least one of his men as they filed for hours past his deathbed? Nah, the question of succession only came up 3 seconds before death after almost 2 weeks of illness. Furthermore, it's telling what ISN'T said in both versions. Neither version mentions him calling for his wives or son. Gee, I don't know if it could be seen as problematic to either the nobles or their grandchildren if they mention Alexander speaking to his wives and children during the last 2 weeks of his life. Nope. No doctor. No wife 1. No wife 2. No son and heir. Granted women weren't exactly mentioned on every page, but Alexander's mother was mentioned in the pamphlet, but not his wives? The crisis was so apparent that the soldiers demanded visitation in both versions, but the wives didn't in either? Of course not. Because the wives would have NECESSARILY demanded the author of either false tale bring up the question of succession in the preceeding 2 weeks, and not reserve the question as an afterthought for the last 3 seconds from some random noble dude. Don't get me wrong, Alexander did it to himself. He knew these cutthroats in the Macedonian court and what they were capable of better than anyone. He had benefitted and used this very kind of intrigue for years, perhaps from the very begining. Many a powerful rival or noble and their son was conveinently disposed of. The dude should have known that peacetime in the empire is the most dangerous moment of his life. He must have realized that until his child was born and became his son and heir, every hand was a potential dagger and every cup a potential poison. Yet, he drank many many cups and shook many hands. So in a way, it's irrelevent that he didn't actually say "to the strongest", because by drinking of all those cups, whether they were poisoned or not, he did say the words and both histories are accurate. He did kill himself and was poisoned and it was an accident of history that no one saw coming. The irony is not how it happened. The irony is that both tales are false and might just as well have happened, and neither should have happened because, like Alexander, we all do our own history to ourselves.
Aside from the stories of the Roman Empire, this narrative stories of Alexander The Great is also one of my favorite videos here... Thanks for the full story, @KingsAndGenerals 🙏
The lack of detailed information about Purushottam (also known as Porus) in Indian historical records may be due to the fact that much of ancient Indian history was transmitted orally and later recorded in texts . Additionally, the accounts of ancient Indian rulers and warriors may not have been extensively documented or preserved in a way that would provide a comprehensive historical record. As a result, much of what we know about figures like Porus comes from the accounts of foreign travelers and historians, such as the Greek historian Arrian, who chronicled Alexander the Great's campaigns in the Indian subcontinent. It's possible that further archaeological and historical research may unearth more information about Purushottam and other ancient Indian figures in the future.
Before the invention of writing information was transmitted orally in all cultures. That includes the Greeks. Homer's illiad was transmitted orally before being written down. It's just that middle eastern cultures and the ones near them (Greeks, Egyptians and Persians) invented writing early and were able to write down a lot more of their history.
@@dotdash8327 The earliest “writing” we’ve found has simply been tally marks, represented as notches in wood or bone. They’ve been used for at least 40,000 years. We don’t know what they were counting-it could be days, or months, or sheep-but whatever it was, it must have been important to them. These tallies slowly developed into more sophisticated number systems. Eventually we start seeing writing that we know belongs to a particular profession: writing by accountants. We know that because the numbers are accompanied by crude pictograms of agricultural products. They’re transaction records-this many sheep for this much wheat-or tax records. The pictograms changed over time, becoming mnemonics for similarly-pronounced words (like using an eye for “I” in English) and eventually abstract letters representing sounds or words, like we have today. It is this sort of accounting record that gives us the first name of a writer: Kushim. Kushim was a Sumerian accountant who lived in the city of Uruk around 3,400 B.C. We’ve found eighteen tablets with his name on it. So the earliest known writer was an accountant named Kushim, but he was by no means the first person to write-just the first to write his name on something that survived to the 21st century. It ultimately depends on how one wishes to define writing.
Ancient indian sources dont mention Purushottam. They mention someone Pauravtaka. Also everything about puru and purushottam in india is make up patriotic propaganda of very later centuries and that is because there is no ancient hindu reference to porus. Why is that ? He got defeated by a foreigner (Alexander) and he sided with him to fight the Kathi kingdom (read battle of sangala). Hindu culture estimated that there was no reason for ancient hindu writers to wrote down anything notable about him.
@@soumyadiptamajumder8795 no. It was written after 300 b.C by Ptolemy, Alexandrean writers, Antiochean and other Hellenistic writers. Roman writers just copyied them at some rate. Those original hellenistic scriptures are lost in time mainly due to the burning of big libraries like Alexandria, Antioch, Pergamon.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder now with my link, and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more: playwt.link/kingsandgenerals2023
happy new year
Well done, thank you. I'm hooked
But he is ruler of small part of Asia , Africa and middle East . They were greater kings even during his time.
Update data.
Western trashes spreading propaganda again
Hi everyone, I was the historian and scriptwriter for this video, hope you all enjoyed it! If you've got any questions or feedback for me, please do leave them below and I'll do my best to get around to them! Happy New Years!
Its a great work of art my good sir. Congratulations. Whats your opinion on "Alexander han nothing to do with Greece, he was a Macedonian conqueror"?. No offence,sir
@@malamatinas1 ρωτάω ώστε να δω αν ο κειμενογράφος αρνείται την ελληνικότητα του Αλέξανδρο αδερφέ
@@thinkpolhub That is a lot of questions! Most of these are unanswerable from a factual perspective, but I’ll give my thoughts on them!
Cause of death: As the video (hopefully) makes this clear, this is basically unanswerable: the historical record is so polluted by propaganda that it’s impossible to say what the truth is with certainty. My own gut instinct (and it is just a feeling, not a fact) is that he died of natural causes, probably a combination of malria, drink and his lung wound. I think that people don’t like to think of such a HUGE character as Alexander dying so boringly, but sometimes, that’s just how it went. Kings die like peasants.
@@thinkpolhub Alexander’s Tomb: As you say, basically unknown, but I personally am VERY interested in Limneos-Papakosta’s recent findings (worth googling if you’re interested), as well as the possibility of revisiting the work of Souvaltzi, which would place the tomb around Siwa.
@@thinkpolhub Ego vs Idealism: I don’t know how useful this kind of dichotomy. Isn’t everyone motivated by both forces to some degree? How can one separate one from the other? Is it not possible that Alexander was an idealistic egotistic? Someone who desperately craved fame, glory and power, but who wanted those things because they genuinely thought that they were improving their world? I think Alexander falls into that kind of category to me. He did some terrible, awful things and could be brutal, but I think his genuine motivation was to create a blended world of East and West, more advanced and prosperous than before…which he would, of course, be the ruler of lol.
This two-parter was simply BRILLIANT! Kudos to everyone involved!
Amazing
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
@@Blastizor I take it you have a theory on JFK,the moon landings and of course the COVID debacle😂. The funny thing is, you could be right, however, it is very likely Alexander was as good a military leader as is written.....whether you can stomach that or not 👍
Best Alexander videos ever. They could be 5 times as long but happy we got 6 hours!! Great work
The production quality on this channel keeps going up.
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
A small thank you for your hard work! What a great way to end 2023 than to watch your long documentaries on Alexander the Great!
😂
Send me money too
That's what's up
Big of u. The quality of the content is fantastic
@@tbando2253 😎😎
Hopefully a long form revision of the Wars of the Diadochi series will also eventually come forth! Truly magisterial, K&G
Yep
@@KingsandGenerals getting me very excited, really random but if you have a favourite diadochi who is it?
@@chezburger1781 Eumenes
@@KingsandGenerals really good choice and a very interesting story, mine is probably perdiccas.
I know it's a weird choice but he was the only one to really keep the empire together, even if it was only for a moment.
@@KingsandGeneralsHype, those are very underrated
I literally just finished the first 3 hour part from 6 days ago. I stood up to make food, and now as I'm eating it, there's part 2 ready for me. Thanks so much, guys! Keep up the good work, and happy 2024🎉
This channel represents one of RUclips's most undeservedly redeeming qualities, and puts equivalent documentaries formerly found in the realm of legacy media, in places like the Discovery and History channels to shame in the way it delivers educational material of remarkable scope and meticulous detail in such immersively compelling form. I am, quite frankly, somewhat bewildered by how much effort the composition of this two-part series alone must surely have required.
Thanks!
At first I thought this was a recap. But a 2+ hour long video is definitely not what I expected 😳. Kudos!
This is my New Year's gift. Thank you so much Kings and Generals! I love this era and I want to see a full 2nd Punic War documentary on this channel.
check out oversimplified he recently made a video on this topic
This was one of my favorite videos in a while, I only wish you could've spent some time at the end talking about his tomb and the mystery around that, amazing job and thank you!
Thanks! Some of it will be covered in the Diadochi series
omg yes.@@KingsandGenerals
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
Fantastic series! Bravo to all involved!
Hard to believe that such a person ever truly existed. What’s even more astonishing is that just six months ago marked the anniversary of Alexander’s death more than a millennia ago. Just goes to show how impactful one’s legacy has and continues to have.
Looking forward to the Wars of the Diadochi series.
Happy New Year everyone!
Agree that its hard to believe such a man existed but just wanted to say : 6 months ago was what, the 2346th anniversary since his death? Not really a noteworthy number, or noteworthy that that we are at the opposite end of the year to the anniversary haha. Also a lot more than a millennia ago. 😅
Nope
Didn't expect the last episode of your series on Alexander to drop today, what a way to end 2023
Alexander the psycho indeed, and he wasn't that great at war contrary to what western historians would say. He was only able to defeat the Persians because of their very weakened state of internal strife, rebellions, and expensive failed invasions of Greece, all of thee events severely weakened the Persians. The Persians fended off a barrage of invasions over the centuries prior to Alexander's conquest. To finalize, he also lost to minor King Porus of Northern India but the truth was distorted by the Greek historians 300 years after the events all took place. There was no Indian records of Alexander ever battling king Porus, yet alone defeating him. For instance the massive Mughul invasion that took over most of India was completely written down, whilst Alexander's so called invasion was never even mentioned which goes to say that it was so minor that they didn't bother to take note of it (highly unlikely because Indians historians kept records of everything), or it literally never happened and it's a complete farce by the Greeks. The Greeks had a reputation of distorting history to fit their narrative in a means to bolster their reputability.
@@Blastizor Become a historian to prove your point
@@Blastizor And you talk as if the greeks were united lolllllll, even the so called "greeks" hated Alexander, and firstly the greeks were never united so you using the term "greek" is invalid, just as invalid as using the term "indians" as if they were united for almost most of their entire history. the Indian and greek nationality wasnt even a thing until in the 1800's for the greek and 1900's for the indians, So come back to me when you have a better argument without using the term "Greeks" and "Indians"
@@Blastizor Lastly, Alexander built 2 citites on both banks of the Hydaspes river after he won the battle of Hydaspes, those 2 citites were Bucephalia and Nicaea, and Bucephalia, modern day phalia pakistan is still inhabited by people to this day, if that isnt proof enough that he won idk what is for you
@@mithridates3152 Greeks : we fought a great king he is tall dangerous blah blah blah
Indian kings : yeah we put a gaurd post there to watch locust attack on fields
Indian kings called porus : did something happen
Porus to indian kings :nothing sir I fought a bunch of people thats have ur meal sir
Mean while in Takshsila
Scholars : what are those sounds
Gaurds : porus is playing with swords with some white bandits dont worry sir write ur books
This would have happened . even gaurds didnt considered that as battle thats they didnt mention it in history 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I cannot wait for a series on the rise and fall of the Diadochi.
I have wanted a detailed rise and fall of those for years.
There's is a playlist of that on this channel but its old
Thank you for a really clear description of Alexanders campaigns, the maps/graphics really help, good analysis of the sources at many points.
I have an idea for a series to Wizards and Warriors: "What if Alexander lived longer?"
Anyone in favor?
@@thinkpolhub And Babylon would still be around.
@@vitorpereira9515 What I wouldn't give to see Babylon in it's prime....
Probably he did reach America LOL.
@@thinkpolhub I guess his empire expand until Galaxy LMAO 😂😂.
@@thinkpolhub Can he conquer the two great power region of the West Mediterannian like Carthage and Rome 🤔🤔?
Please make more videos about persian dynasties. I feel like they dont get covered enough for the impact they had on the history.
Thank you so much for the great work! Absolutely beautiful series.
Many would take the name "The Great," from Pompey to Tsar Peter, but nobody, and i mean NOBODY, will ever deserve the title "The Great" more than Alexander III of Macedonia; sure his legacy is complicated and his domain went to hell after his death, but in his short life, no one did, and will ever do more than him, RIP Alexander, the GOAT
Edit: changing to alexander iii
Alexander II?
Alexander the Victorius ⚔⚔🔥🔥.
Perhaps his domain went to hell after his death but forever his soul resides with Achilles in Elysium🔥🔥.
Really? Not even Cyrus the great or Darius the great? Created the templates for super powers to exist, and their dynasty lasted until Alexander the great hundreds of years later. Alexander was definitely great, but there are many examples of individuals who deserve such a name.
He murdered and pillaged when he stole land. Nothing great about that
What about Frederick the Great bro?
Finished the two Alexander videos just now. Almost 6 hours, took me more than a week. Thank you for all your hard work. Incredible.
This Might Be Interesting: Alexander the Great launched what is now known as the Cophen Campaign, the first stage of his invasion, between May 327 and March 326 BCE. By taking fortresses of the Aspasioi, Guraeans, and Assakenoi tribes in the Panjkora (Dir) and Swat valleys of modern Pakistan and the Kunar valley of modern Afghanistan, he hoped to secure his line of communication. Alexander the Great defeated the Aspasians first, capturing their cities after a series of fierce battles in which he and his general Ptolemy were both injured, though Ptolemy also killed the Apasian king.
Oh K’s and G’s giving us all the long documentaries we needed! Thanks guys!
If the author of the pamphlet knew who of the attendees were guilty and who weren't, then it seems that the author was one of the conspirators that later felt guilt for his participation in Alexander's poisoning. I wish that his tomb and remains are found.
That was awesome work, u should be very proud!! I can't imagine taking on such an enormous task! Loaded with so many facts, but never did it get boring. The style of storytelling kept me hooked! It was so easy to listen and just close my eyes and watch it play out like a movie in my head!! Thank you!!!
Love your recent focus on Alexander - keep it coming!
If he truly did say ''to the strongest'' I personally think it was said so that he could destroy the empire and secure his immortality. If they all think they're the strongest, they'll all fight for it and destroy themselves; ensuring no one will overshadow his legacy. Unlikely for sure, but a good way for him to ensure his legacy. Thanks for the video.
True
I love these long videos!
Happy New Year to Kings and Generals. Thanks for all your efforts 👌
Some epic documentary to finish the end of the year !!! Thanks kings and generals great work as always
You know the old “if you could invite anyone dead or alive to a dinner party” question? This guy should be on top of everyone’s list! He’d have some stories to tell…😂
Greek here, as much as i would find that interesting. That's a big no from my part. This man was believing himself to be a chosen diety, had also a bad temper when drunk. Paranoia too! He's gonna stab someone again.
@@elasolezito at least it would be a talking point! 🤣
@@GIBBO4182 sword point apparently! 😋
He doesn't even register on my list. I would much rather the great Khan than him or John Locke.
@@aaronmontgomery2055 who?
2:04:52 love how during this time rome is just slowly consolidating and conquering
Hi, K&G. In this New Year I request you to make mega documentaries on the following topics(if possible). It is a long list:
1. Gymnasiums in Ancient Greece
2. Mongol Generals
3. Role of women in Mongol Society
4. Austro-Hungarian Empire
5. Northern Crusades
6. Bolshevik Revolution
7. Russian Civil War
8. Mongol Khanates: Golden Horde, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate and Khanate of Kublai Khan
9. How England incorporated Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales into it
10. Irish Civil War
11. The Great Dutch Revolt(Eighty Years War)
12. French Wars of Religion
13. Peninsular War
14. Pre-Columbine America
15. Balkan Wars
16. Russian Czars: From Best to Worst
17. War of Austrian Succession
18. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth
19. Chola Empire
20. Swedish Wars
21. Khanates after the demise of the Golden Horde
22. First and Second Reich
23. Spanish Civil War
24. Spanish Empire
25. Age of Exploration
26. Industrial Revolution
27. Indian Revolt of 1857
28. Maratha Empire
29. Dutch Empire
30. Danish Empire
31. Shia Caliphates
31. Crimean War
32. Franco-Prussian War
33. Sassanid Kings and Generals
34. Achaemenian Kings and Generals
35. Three Kingdoms of Korea
36. Medieval Japan
Caste system and sati pratha of hindus also
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 Ancient Hindu texts like the Vedas, the Puranas and the Shatapatha Brahmana explicitly mention that the involvement of the Shudras in Vedic rituals is essential, and that reverence to the lower classes pleases God.
The Shukla Yajurveda (16.27) says:
‘Homage to you carpenters and to you chariot makers, homage. Homage to you potters and to you blacksmiths, homage. Homage to you boatmen and to you Punjishthas, homage. Homage to you dog-leaders and to you hunters, homage.
Another hymn (18.48) from the same Veda says: ‘O Lord! Please fill the Brahmanas with light, the Kshatriyas with light, the Vaishyas with light and the Shudras with light; and in me fill the same light.’
It is a measure of the enlightened nature of Indian society that it accorded great respect to the working class. In contrast, most other civilisations treated labourers and agriculturists as property. In Athens, only 10 per cent of the population had the vote; the majority were slaves.
The ‘Holy’ Bible is rampant with slavery. Not one Biblical figure, including Jesus or St. Paul, is recorded as saying anything against slavery, which was an integral part of life of Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during those times.
Take this passage from the Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1-2:
‘All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing (Christian) masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers (Christians). Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.’
On the other hand, ancient Indian history is littered with examples of men who crossed the great divide. Take Veda Vyasa, who wrote the Mahabharata: his mother was a fisherwoman. Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana, was a Dalit in today’s parlance.
Several celebrated rishis (seers) hailed from lower castes - Jabali’s mother was what one would call a prostitute today. Aitareya, who wrote the Aitareya Upanishad, was born of a Shudra woman. Parashara, the revered law-giver, was the son of a Chandala, the lowest of the Shudras. Vishwamitra was not a Brahmin but a Kshatriya.
Again, Saint Thiruvalluvar, who wrote the Thirukural, was a weaver. Kabir, Surdas, Ramdas and Tukaram, who are revered as saints, came from the humblest echelons of Hindu society.
Unlike Jesus, who had to be whitened and given blond hair in order to be accepted as the son of god by Europeans, Indian saints did not have to undergo any cosmetic surgery to be accepted by the masses.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says: ‘Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues which are the cause of auspiciousness. Even a Chandala observing the vow is considered a Brahmin by the gods.’
The great Bhim Rao Ambedkar observed that caste was absent in early Indian society. In a speech delivered on May 9, 1916 at Columbia University, New York, on the subject, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, Amedkar said:
‘Society is always composed of classes. It may be an exaggeration to assert the theory of class conflict, but existence of definite classes in a society is a fact. Their basis may differ. They may be economic or intellectual or social, but an individual in a society is always a member of a class. This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule, and, as a matter of fact, we know it was not. If we bear this generalisation in mind, our study of the genesis of caste would be very much facilitated, for we have only to determine what was the class that first made itself into a caste.’
To be sure, while the jati - the actual Indian word for social groups - divide may not have been as deep as it is today, crossing the chasm may have been common.
In his memoirs Indika, Megasthenes (300 BCE), the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya, identifies seven groups - Philosophers, Agriculturists, Herdsmen, Artisans, Soldiers, Inspector and Councillors - within Indian society, without ranking them in any way.
The Philosophers are held in estimation as the top group notwithstanding their number is the smallest. They performed yajnas and funerals, and the Brahmins among them married and had children but lived a simple life. This suggests that Brahmins were in no way superior or considered superior. They just performed a very important role and were respected for their nobility which came from their learning and penance. ‘And it is a law that if any one of them be three times convicted of falsehood, he shall be doomed to silence during life; but the upright they exonerate from tax and tribute.’
The second division is the Agriculturists, who are the ‘most numerous and worthy’. This suggests they were not considered inferior to any other group. They pursue their occupation free from military duties and fear; neither concerning themselves with civil, nor public, nor indeed any other business.
The third rank is that of the Shepherds and Hunters, to whom alone it is lawful to hunt, graze, and sell cattle, for which they give a premium and stipend. For ridding the land also, of wild beasts and birds which destroy the grain, they are entitled to a portion of corn from the king, and lead a wandering life, living in tents.
The fourth rank is that of the Artisans and Innkeepers, and bodily Labourers of all kinds, of whom some bring tribute, or, instead of it, perform stated service on the public works. But the manufacturers of arms and builders of ships are entitled to pay and sustenance from the king, for they work only for him.
The fifth group is the Military, who, when disengaged, spend the rest of their time at ease, in stations or barracks assigned them by the king, so that, whenever occasion may require, they may be ready to march forth directly, carrying with them nothing else than their bodies.
The sixth rank consists of the Inspectors, whose business it is to pry into all matters that are carried on, and report them privately to the king, for which purpose in the towns they employ courtesans, and camp-followers in the camp. They are chosen from the most upright and honourable men.
Ranked seventh are the Councillors and Assessors of the king, by whom the government, and laws, and administration are conducted. Megasthenes says this is among the smallest groups but the most respected, on account of the high character and wisdom of its members; for from their ranks the advisers of the king are taken, and the treasurers, of the state, and the arbiters who settle disputes. The generals of the army also, and the chief magistrates, usually belong to this class.
As we can see, army generals - who formally belonged to a separate group - were taken from among the Councillors. Conceptions of caste, Megasthenes suggests, were much more fluid than today. Emperor Chandragupta Maurya himself was of mixed descent.
Hope this disperse your ignorance!!!
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 no this channel os not about that. Also sati and pardha is a new practice. It started after the conquest of turks.
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 Caste system and Sati are not pratha, dumbo. Castes aka Jaatis are social structures. Sati was a rare practice of voluntary deaths committed by individual men and women of the upper echelon of the Indic society. It was basically Indian version of 'seppuku' kinda practice..
Thank you for all your work this year))
Happy New Year🎉
We will catch each other next year😃
As always thank u KnG for your hard work!
You really spend quality time to get the info about this Great Man, to drill-down and to analyze all of it. Really good job! Thank you.
Alexander have to be considered the greatest general / King in history when your generals becomes Kings and establish dynasties in they own right when usually it blood ties that get you a pathway to the 👑
Napoleon I.
@@Ms314159265358979323 Yes him and Napoleon are the 2 greatest generals in history.They won battle after battle.
Patiently waited for this video for years. Wonderful addition to your conicals of Alexander. 🖖
They say the longer it is the better it is so Create more videos like this🙏
Thank-you for this really complete coverage❤
Thanks for your kind response❤❤❤
I love these long documentaries!!! Thank you for such tremendous good work that you provide for everyone to watch 😀
I love your videos all of them and i watch everything you put out by far the best and most informative youtube channel out there. Wish i could save your videos for deployment lol. Happy new years !
RIP to Alexander 🙏🙏.
May Ares bless the soul of Alexander in Elysium 🙏🙏.
Amen 👍
Chinese chommen❤😂@@Anonymous07192
ares?!
@Nixo77 Greek god of courage and warfare one of the 12 Olympians I believe
Alexander's Story always seems like an herculian effort.
It amazes me how he could push the army so far
Im Greek and we are taught that he wanted to conquer India but his army didnt , they were too exhausted and for so much time away from home they wanted to return back to Greece although many never did eventually.
He achieved more than heroes of greek myth
Truly amazing work. Thank you so much, to all involved. One of my favorite channels 👌👍
Thank you for making this glorious video.
Thank you, K&G, for this long video, and for a year full of great historical content. I was wondering, after covering Alexander the Great, if you would revisit the period of the Diadochi Wars? I'm sure you could do better videos, and also, the period goes further that 302 BC.
Thanks again for the great year! Cheers.
Yep
Amazing series! Kudos to all involved!
Porus’s height of 7 feet tall seems far fetched but according to Greek and Roman sources from that time period , South Asian people were the tallest race of people with men on avg being 5’10 feet tall.
He would have been massively taller than most men greeks had ever seen. My guess he could have been around 6'4-6'7 considering 7 feet is too damn tall to even walk around and fight while Porus fought in the battlefield along his men
@@pranayghosh4413 Alexander and his army modern studies believe were kinda in the 5'3-6 range, therefore ofc a 6'4-6 guy with a huge frame will seem as a giant but yeah 7ft is exaggerated most likely, Peter The Great was pretty close tho so it might be not impossible
It depends of the area. Pahadis(mountain folk) in India are known to be very tall guys, taller even by world standards. The tallest dude in the world is from nepal. Alexander came to Indian subcontinent in areas that are adjacent. So its not impossible.
I don't think so and it's Indian men not south asian.
@@shahsadsaadu5817 North Indians today (in Himachal and Uttarakhand) are actually shorter than average
great compilation of alexander. are you planning to do the wars of the diadochi next?
Incredible series. Thank you all so much for your work.
It is wild one man did this, having the draw to send and army across the world 2,500 years ago.
The amount of work that went into this masterpiece must be staggering. As always great job!!
Thanks for a terrific series!
Another New Year gift!
One of the greatest conquerors, Alexander the Great, has been the focus of considerable conjecture, and the question of whether or not he was gay remains one of the most contentious. According to several historians, Alexander had a great affinity for men; however, others believe that this is a result of a misreading of the historical record. Alexander’s close ties with men like Hephaestion and Bagoas have been interpreted by some as proof of his homosexuality, while others have argued that they were merely close companions. Another common argument against Alexander’s claimed homosexuality is that he was married many times to different women and had at least one child from them, Alexander IV. That is why whether Alexander the Great was gay or not is still an open question today. Throughout his life, Alexander the Great is said to have had a number of close relationships with men. Hephaestion, Alexander’s closest friend and confidant, stood out among these friendships. It was said that Hephaestion and Alexander had been close since they were kids, almost like brothers. Alexander was so devastated by Hephaestion’s death that he advocated worshipping him as a god. Before Plutarch and Arrian, the Roman historian Curtius authored The History of Alexander in the first century AD where he discussed Alexander and Hephaestion in his writings.
According to Curtius,
“Hephaestion was by far the dearest of the king’s [Alexander’s] friends; he had been brought up with Alexander and shared all his secrets. No other person was privileged to advise the king as candidly as he did, and yet he exercised that privilege in such a way that it seemed granted by Alexander rather than claimed by Hephaestion.”
Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, 3.12.16.
Hephaestion is later compared to a young man called Euxenippus by Curtius in Book 7. Some researchers think he was the Persian eunuch that Alexander personally liked, Bagoas:
Therefore, he [Alexander] received the envoys of the Sacae courteously and gave them Euxenippus; to accompany them; he was still very young and a favorite of the king [Alexander] because of his youthful beauty, but although in handsome appearance he was equal to Hephaestion, he was not his match in a charm which was indeed not manly.
Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander, Volume II: Books 6-10.
Curtius here appears to be making a reference to the possible sexual motivations for Alexander’s preference for Hephaestion over Euxenippus. And perhaps this could be why Alexander found Hephaestion’s death so devastating. Curtius was cautious in describing the nature of the connection between Alexander and Hephaestion. Perhaps it was because in the 4th century BC Greece, the concept of sexual intercourse between adult males was not commonly tolerated.
Diodorus Siculus, a historian from Sicily, lived between 90 and 30 BC. Despite living two centuries after Alexander, he is still one of the closest ancient historians to the time period of Alexander’s life. The Macedonian general Craterus was one of the most devoted and loyal friends of Alexander, but according to Diodorus, Craterus was merely “king-loving” (philbasileus), while Hephaestion was “Alexander-loving” (philalexandros).
Alexander threw himself into preparations for the burial of Hephaestion. He showed such zeal about the funeral that… it left no possibility for anything greater in later ages… …when one of the companions said that Craterus was loved no less than Hephaestion, Alexander had answered that Craterus was king-loving, but Hephaestion was Alexander-loving.
Diodorus. 17.114.(1-2)
After Hephaestion passed away at Ecbatana due to fever, it was a blow to Alexander, during which he refused to eat or drink and spent three days flat on the ground in sorrow.
The chroniclers of the past often sought to portray Alexander the Great in a positive light while overlooking any perceived “shortcomings” he may have had. This includes whether Alexander the Great was gay. It’s still worth noting that this is not concrete evidence to suggest that Alexander and Hephaestion had a romantic or homosexual relationship.
A eunuch and Persian, Bagoas the Younger was another individual Alexander had a close friendship with. Allegedly romantically involved, Bagoas worked as Alexander’s personal attendant and was designated a courtier. Following the victory, Bagoas the Younger was presented to Alexander the Great by King Darius III’s court of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. Typical of ancient Greek culture, Alexander had a liking for young boys, and Bagoas soon became his closest confidant.
According to Plutarch, the Macedonians once cheered to bade Alexander kiss Bagoas in a public event:
We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his favourite, Bagoas, won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander’s side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly.
Plutarch - Life of Alexander (Part 7 of 7)
As counterevidence to the claim that Alexander was gay, many point to his many marriages to women and the children he had with them. Over the course of his brief life, Alexander married Roxana, Stateira, and Parysatis. And it’s not 100% definite that all of them were committed partners of his. Alexander’s sole known child, Alexander IV, was born to his Bactrian wife, Roxana, after his death in 323 BC. Historians have speculated that Stateira could have been pregnant when she died.
Males often had intimate, sexual connections with other men in ancient Greek society. Such pairings weren’t automatically seen as signs of gay or bisexual orientation, but rather as a natural part of life. Because of this, it’s crucial to think about how the ideas and customs of the period affected Alexander’s personal connections. These close friendships often characterized ancient Greek society, and that’s why there wasn’t always sexual tension between them.
Historical accounts indicate that Alexander had a voracious sexual appetite and a constant presence of women in his life. As he grew older, he reportedly indulged in the company of concubines every night. In conclusion, it is impossible to state with certainty whether or not Alexander the Great was gay or even bisexual, despite evidence suggesting he had intimate ties with men. Alexander’s sexuality is still a mystery and a hotly disputed issue among academics.
He fked porus that's fo sure
@@theoriginalrudeboy2916 no he didn't.
Only a gay dude would put this much effort into fantasy that he was gay
@@Jjhawkk😂😂😂
Dude Alexander liked men more than woman. This is blatantly clear. He had little interest in woman except at times. Being bi sexual was very common. Gay didn't exist in the Greek culture. There is no word for it. Why does it matter anyway who cares
The two Alexander the Great documentaries are amazing Well done to all who worked on them 👍🏴🇵🇸
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
Look forward to the diodochi video!
I was thinking about that at the end of the video, It would be awesome!
This was extraordinary guys. Thank you so much for this. It is interesting to wonder exactly what happened to Alexander in the end. I very much look forward to the series on his successors! Thank you again!
God be with you out there everybody! ✝️ :)
Are you making remakes of the older Diadochi videos? What would be awsome, can´t wait to watch those!
Ye
Just brilliant
Should make one for great Timur
We have a few videos on Timur
You deserve not one but many oscars for so many perfect videos you have made!!
Happy new year to the K&G team! Taking shrooms to celebrate 😎
Another incredible K&G series, thank you truly. 🙏
Thanks!
Yes I am waiting for the sequel!
Alexander the Great was not just a conqueror. His purpose was to exchange values and knowledge, resulting in the prevalence of Greek civilization and the creation of the Hellenistic era.
Scientific sequence in the campaign of Alexander the Great:
Doctors: Drakon ,Glaukias , Kritodemos, Filippo the acarnanian ,and Ippoktates son of Ippocrate.
Historians,Topographers: Aristovoulos kassandrephs , Kallisthenes nephew of Aristoteles.
Painters, poets, musicians: Athenodoros from Thessaly ,Lykon ,Apelles ,Lysippos,Aristonikos.
Fortune tellers , Prophets : Aristandros , Kleomenes from Sparta.
Wizards and warriors should make a what if series about what if Alexander didn’t died
Great detail in this video! It's a shame that Indians deny that this battle happened.. They should be proud of their Helenic ties! There were hundredths of Greek settlements in India after Alexander's battle with Porus! Quite amazing stuff!
no ne shoulld be proud of the culture of conquerers
The Opis mutiny speech changed my life forever.
Thank you so much. I have really enjoyed this
Hey, don't forget the Portuguese subtitles... we in Brazil love your videos! ❤
These 2 long Alexander the Great vids you guys made...amazing! If only they'd been around in the 90s when I was writing my high school history research paper on him.
Thanks!
I am an Indian, and admire and respect the bravery of Alexander the great. He was such a brave man
And Chandragupta would learn well from Alexander's invasion and usher a golden age in India.
@@Liquidsback I think you are going too far now... Alexander's army was afraid of Nanda's to begin with
And golden age already existed in India.
@@Liquidsback goldenage existed in Egypt, Persia and India which charmed the balls out of dacoit Alexander who rushed to loot these civilization
@njshah4845 Alexander's army was more exhausted than anything. Ultimately, we don't know how such an invasion would go, but don't count out Alexander with numbers alone
@@zombieoverlord5173Do you even know how large the Nanda army was. It’s just impossible he would’ve won there, even if he tried to go into India he would’ve died due to diseases there.
This was fascinating to listen to while working. Thanks for making these videos.
I visited Alexander the Great’s throne where he took his last breath in Iraq back in 2003 in the city of Babylon. I fought in OIF as a U.S. Marine &I was lucky few who had a chance to see this ancient city and see his throne. It was raised above the ground by about 4 feet with a boxy shape and composed of lots of brown clay bricks and not in a good shape but still able to see it was once a throne. I took pictures of it and still treasure it. I understand Babylon was built over and over so I'm unsure of the accuracy of it. I did see the former grounds of the Tower of Babel, the hanging garden, a lion statue with human figure below the lion which is mentioned in the book of the Bible, the first asphalt road, the first wine cellar to keep it cool, and map of Garden of Eden hung on the wall which was located near Marsh arab used to reside until Saddam used chemical warfare on them and murdered them all.
Good info. Thank you for your service sir
Here come the American hero that saved people from saddam.
Its boils my blood that you stepped into my land and walked into places that most of Iraqis including me never reached.
@@200555280You'll get over it.
This was fantastic, I could and probably will watch it a few times
Could the pamphlet be written by someone who was part of the assassination and the guilt led him to publish the thruth (could you make a video that focuses on the end of Sparta i am struggling to find how the city ended)
im impressed with the work on this video its almost as impressive as the subject matter Alexander The Great i loved this two part struggled to keep focus on 2nd part i paused rewinded a few times but that was because i was engaged and interested im in awe of this man alexander who lived such an awesome life yes it was brutal but he was impressive nevertheless thanks for such a great watch and a glance into history i need to watch more of this channel for sure thank you
Most maps of Alexander's conquests show the battles of Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela, and Hydaspes, which a little attention paid to Greek revolts, Tyre, and the Persian. The fact that Alexander had so many battles against so many different foes - regular large armies, forts and cities, guerilla fighters - show how brilliant he. He's like, sending people to climb up mountains, crossing rivers in the pouring rain, charging into a hail of arrows, fighting elephants. This dude, if half the stuff about him is true, is like the Action Hero of the Ancient world. Son of Heracles? Maybe. And his army were probably one of the best in history.
@fenrir7878 Plus everything mentioned happened in only 10 years.
would love to see you guys redo the diadochi/successor war stuff its so interesting to watch the empire crumble
End of the video
@@KingsandGenerals I was just so excited to watch I didn't even wait to comment. classic youtube
What a great new year present, i absolutely love it.
That's the best king , the best general the world has ever seen !!!
General probably king? Not even close haha
Minus everything else on the battlefield he was a straight badass. How many battles in what a little over a decade? 16-18 when he stormed in the frontlines to take a castle for his dad. Theres a reason julius ceasar put his head on alexander the greats statue.
Selucus probably had an eye on his wife and asked Alexander if she would be his "given wife" or vice versa, she chose him. I doubt it was arranged hence the couple lasted the longest and were happy.
Great video as usual with you guys!
Redoing the War of the Diadochi? Hell yeah.
In india we say jo jeeta wahi sikander.
Translation: Alexander is he who wins, though i dont how how old the saying is, It might be possible it started from that era only because of his undefeated conquest.
Great ruler alexander the great 🇬🇷💪
Bravo!
Thank you for making this video. Ive been debating the porus won myth for years. Alexander won, and i cant see the issue with that.
Defeating small kingdoms in nkrth west india was one thing. A direct faceoff with the mighty nanda empire of patliputra and Magadha was another. He was better advised not to have taken them on.
The Persian empire was the greatest empire the world had ever seen up to that point in history, controlling 40% of the worlds population, and Alexander crushed it. The guy marched his army for 15 straight years and never lost a battle. You're crazy if you think the Nanda empire, which was overthrown a year later, would have withstood him.
Lol they should have crossed over then. @@VeniVidiVomuithe nandas were defeated from inside never from the outside. Learn a bit on Indian history
@@VeniVidiVomui what are sources that made you claim 40 percent population control . also why are we to believe only greek or european historian side , we can have a differing opinion to what west believes .
@@vineetv I never said they were genius.
@@VeniVidiVomui it was over thrown without mentioning who did it ? Genius eh?
The brown splatter at 26:30 is a nice touch.
Give Alexander credit, he created an Empire that was the largest the world had ever witnessed until the Mongols.
*Umayyads
Nah not really lol.
Several came after that were larger in size landmass and population
@@Liquidsbackmate most of thier conquest were done by rashidun
alexander already handed greatest military from his father aganist one struggling empire wasn't at their peak rueld by bad leader darius who never fought battle in his life n he ran away from battles
@@ghostd69did you watch the first part or no?
19:35 "...but was badly wounded, with an arrow to the leg..." Put a stop to that adventure! 😅
Me for years arguing with indians that Alexander didn't lose against phorus sighting all the sources. Finally this video says the same thing as well
lol all accounts of alexander defeting porus comes from greeek sources,whereas indian sources do not even mention the batttle!!
@@PutlerHuyIo yep correct
@@PutlerHuyIoIt was just a border tribal kingdom not worthy of mentioning whereas Alexander’s empire was much larger.
@@PutlerHuyIo Indian sources may not exist because Puru may be some small time chieftain not worthy of mention . Had this battle had any significance in India it surely would have been recorded in the Takshashila University few miles down the location of battle of Hydespas. Takshashila was one of the biggest universities in the world and scholars and students used to come there from allover the region -all the way up to China. Surely there would have been some record from them from somewhere. Instead there is absolutely no mention of this so called battle in India. Instead we only have greek record so its difficult to believe everything they said about Alexander.
@@netaji-thebritishslayer not really, if he had beaten by porus he wouldn't have gone further - this itself came from many other sources Including Persian texts as well.
The location of towns and cities he captured further after the war with porus was actually mentioned by the people living there back then. Only and only indian sources (which came way after) claims that Alexander lost and went back, which is a huge overstatement, a narration which started to exist in modern times just based on guesses.
It's always been a fact that he went back because of the soldiers being so far, with weapons rusting and age. It's also a known fact throughout the entire asian region that celebrated his way back. A defeated king would never do that
Superb... it wasn't just warwar war war but other stuff tooo
It is unbelievably clear that Alexander did not utter "to the strongest". His most famous line not being said by him is not proof he was assassinated but it is proof of character assassination. There is no way that a man who had barely survived his own succession crisis and struggled with the aftermath of living in his father's shadow after his father's death for the rest of his life would not know about what happens to empires without clear succession. Furthermore, he was no idiot in matters of state and history and was tutored by none other than Aristotle himself who definitely would have taught him the need for succession to be clear. These realities are often tried to be thrown away by playing into Alexander's brashness and ego, but bravery on the battlefield doesn't mean selfish and short-sighted, it means the opposite. We know how he felt about matrimony. He only took 2 wives and loved his first so much that he did despite everyone in his kingdom telling him not to and doubled down on it by paying for his men and officers to do the same. Ceasar didn't write his own son into his will, but Ceasar already had a wife by the time he married Cleopatra and wanted to rule back in the west in Rome. Alexander was a young man who's first wife could have been anyone in the known world and wanted to rule in the new kingdom that he conquered in the East. I am certain he didn't want anyone other than one of his sons from either of his wives to rule. The diaries don't mention a doctor but do mention a lawyer for his will. They can't be anything other than false. The pamphlet being written by literally anyone with a pen up to a hundred years after the events and claiming knowledge of his intimate circle is as true as me writing a story about what went on Hitler's bunker 80 years ago at the end of WWII. I can tell you some names of conspirators and I think treachery was involved and my story can be presumed to have it's popularity in my own time be proportional to how operatic and dramatic as I make the story. So the pamphlet is false. Thus, no one knows what happened. It's likely that, assasination or not, even those in the inner circle don't know exactly what happened. What's clear to me is that his death was used to...what's the phrase..."clean house". Even in the pamphlet that is handed down to us, Selucid and Ptolemy are mentioned as not being conspirators. How convenient. Both tales are a coverup. The pamphlet was clearly written knowing of the diaries version and is a response to that. Both versions mention the drinking party, and name the same companion's house on the same night, and both versions have him uttering the words. The pamphlet version can therefore be reasoned to be silent on the days marked with "?" in the video, because the pamphlet wasn't written by a person with knowledge of the inner circle but a playright not unlike shakespeare using the diaries to construct a dramatic narrative that then becomes a condensed and popular amalgamation of the rumors that were cirulating by the grandchildren of the Diodochi Wars. Those children wouldn't be compelled by any need to portray Alexander as being familial or expressing affection for a dynasty that was already lost to them and instead would have disagreed with particular nobles among their grandparents, espicially those blamed in the pamphlet like Antipatter and Cassander whose own attempts at dynasty were long dead, but sought to honor those like Ptolomey and Seulicid whose empires were still alive at the writing of the rumors, so would have seen no problem in having Alexander be the author of his own dynasty's dissolution. The truth can never be known, but we are blessed with 2 versions that agree on some points and disagree on others so we can do the compare and contrast that this video does. The key is looking at the 3 points that are identical. Started on same night, at same guy's house, and ended with him saying the same words. Where they differ is just as critical. We know the accidental version came first, written by the inner circle, and the conspiracy version came up to 3 generations later written anonymously and was popular contemporaneously or it wouldn't have been included hundreds of years later in the Romance. That tells us, even the grandchildren of the nobles didn't believe the accidental, nothing to see here, version of events. They probably could have surmised that Alexander didn't have his first drinking partying on June 1st 423BC at Media's house, nor that Alexander drank SOOOOOO MUCH that night that even him, an experienced, Macedonian drinker, couldn't survive with all the help of an entire continent. He who had survived head wounds, arrows piercing every limb and lung, and BRAGGED about his entire body being full of scars on the front, could die from a bottle on a random night at a friend's house. His own soldiers didn't believe it IN BOTH TALES THEMSELVES! The fac that both tales have the nobles trying to keep Alexander from his men, is itself nothing more than an admission of guilt. This king was no pampered aristocrat in an ivory tower. He lived with his men. LIVED WITH THEM. Fought with them. He had to do nothing more than come out of his tent to speak to them on several occaisions and on for 8 nights following a random friend's house drinking party he was kept secluded from them, when previously he had gone a mere 2 or 3 nights tops without speaking to them on campaign before either he or they relented? The tale in the diaries is the nobles' and the tale in the pamphlet is the nobles' grandchildren. Assassinated or no, the nobles were up to no good before, during and after his death, and he never said "to the strongest". Are we to believe that none of his men asked him any questions on succession, and it was only in his private quarters surrounded by nobles that benefit from this statement that he suddenly was asked this and answered? If Alexander was truly as egotistical and superficial as to doom his own dynasty for the sake of a single bravadocious line, don't you think he would have said it in front of at least one of his men as they filed for hours past his deathbed? Nah, the question of succession only came up 3 seconds before death after almost 2 weeks of illness. Furthermore, it's telling what ISN'T said in both versions. Neither version mentions him calling for his wives or son. Gee, I don't know if it could be seen as problematic to either the nobles or their grandchildren if they mention Alexander speaking to his wives and children during the last 2 weeks of his life. Nope. No doctor. No wife 1. No wife 2. No son and heir. Granted women weren't exactly mentioned on every page, but Alexander's mother was mentioned in the pamphlet, but not his wives? The crisis was so apparent that the soldiers demanded visitation in both versions, but the wives didn't in either? Of course not. Because the wives would have NECESSARILY demanded the author of either false tale bring up the question of succession in the preceeding 2 weeks, and not reserve the question as an afterthought for the last 3 seconds from some random noble dude. Don't get me wrong, Alexander did it to himself. He knew these cutthroats in the Macedonian court and what they were capable of better than anyone. He had benefitted and used this very kind of intrigue for years, perhaps from the very begining. Many a powerful rival or noble and their son was conveinently disposed of. The dude should have known that peacetime in the empire is the most dangerous moment of his life. He must have realized that until his child was born and became his son and heir, every hand was a potential dagger and every cup a potential poison. Yet, he drank many many cups and shook many hands. So in a way, it's irrelevent that he didn't actually say "to the strongest", because by drinking of all those cups, whether they were poisoned or not, he did say the words and both histories are accurate. He did kill himself and was poisoned and it was an accident of history that no one saw coming. The irony is not how it happened. The irony is that both tales are false and might just as well have happened, and neither should have happened because, like Alexander, we all do our own history to ourselves.
That’s just, like, your opinion
Did anyone actually read any of this?
Aside from the stories of the Roman Empire, this narrative stories of Alexander The Great is also one of my favorite videos here... Thanks for the full story, @KingsAndGenerals 🙏
incredible!
Best video on this chanel!
The lack of detailed information about Purushottam (also known as Porus) in Indian historical records may be due to the fact that much of ancient Indian history was transmitted orally and later recorded in texts . Additionally, the accounts of ancient Indian rulers and warriors may not have been extensively documented or preserved in a way that would provide a comprehensive historical record. As a result, much of what we know about figures like Porus comes from the accounts of foreign travelers and historians, such as the Greek historian Arrian, who chronicled Alexander the Great's campaigns in the Indian subcontinent. It's possible that further archaeological and historical research may unearth more information about Purushottam and other ancient Indian figures in the future.
Before the invention of writing information was transmitted orally in all cultures. That includes the Greeks. Homer's illiad was transmitted orally before being written down. It's just that middle eastern cultures and the ones near them (Greeks, Egyptians and Persians) invented writing early and were able to write down a lot more of their history.
@@dotdash8327 The earliest “writing” we’ve found has simply been tally marks, represented as notches in wood or bone. They’ve been used for at least 40,000 years. We don’t know what they were counting-it could be days, or months, or sheep-but whatever it was, it must have been important to them.
These tallies slowly developed into more sophisticated number systems. Eventually we start seeing writing that we know belongs to a particular profession: writing by accountants. We know that because the numbers are accompanied by crude pictograms of agricultural products. They’re transaction records-this many sheep for this much wheat-or tax records. The pictograms changed over time, becoming mnemonics for similarly-pronounced words (like using an eye for “I” in English) and eventually abstract letters representing sounds or words, like we have today.
It is this sort of accounting record that gives us the first name of a writer: Kushim. Kushim was a Sumerian accountant who lived in the city of Uruk around 3,400 B.C. We’ve found eighteen tablets with his name on it. So the earliest known writer was an accountant named Kushim, but he was by no means the first person to write-just the first to write his name on something that survived to the 21st century.
It ultimately depends on how one wishes to define writing.
Ancient indian sources dont mention Purushottam. They mention someone Pauravtaka. Also everything about puru and purushottam in india is make up patriotic propaganda of very later centuries and that is because there is no ancient hindu reference to porus. Why is that ? He got defeated by a foreigner (Alexander) and he sided with him to fight the Kathi kingdom (read battle of sangala). Hindu culture estimated that there was no reason for ancient hindu writers to wrote down anything notable about him.
@@hellenick8867 Even the historical records mentioning Alexander's exploits were written centuries after his death!!!
@@soumyadiptamajumder8795 no. It was written after 300 b.C by Ptolemy, Alexandrean writers, Antiochean and other Hellenistic writers. Roman writers just copyied them at some rate. Those original hellenistic scriptures are lost in time mainly due to the burning of big libraries like Alexandria, Antioch, Pergamon.
WOAH!!!!
What a way to end the year!