Αυτοκρατορίες.. ποιός την είχε πιo μεγάλη;

[GreyHorse]

To πρωτότυπο κείμενο που αποδίδεται στον Ξενοφώντα αναφέρεται στην κλασική Αθήνα, όπως άλλωστε και το παράδειγμα που έδωσα και σου δινει την απάντηση στην ένσταση σου πως δεν αποδεικνύω το "καλύτερος του πολίτη"

Το οποίο καλύτερος του πολίτη ισχύει σε οποιαδήποτε περιοχή και εποχή δουλείας δεν είναι αποκλειστικό φαινόμενο στην αρχαία Αθήνα. Είπαμε, ένας δούλος που βοηθά στην ανάθρεψη παίδων έχει καλύτερες συνθήκες ζωής και εργασίας από έναν ελεύθερο σιδηρουργό, παντού και πάντα. Επίσης ο δούλος ενός πλούσιου άρχοντα ζει καλύτερα από έναν φτωχό πολίτη, παντού και πάντα. Και το κείμενο του Ξενοφώντα αποδεικνύει ότι υπήρχαν πολλοί ρακοντυμένοι και κουρελιαρηδες δούλοι στην αρχαία Αθήνα. Τόσοι που όταν υπήρχε φτωχός Αθηναίος πολίτης, τον περνούσαν και αυτόν για δούλο.

 

Θα μου λύσεις επιτέλους την απορία πως διάολο τους είχαν μάγκες τους δούλους στην αρχαία Αθήνα ενώ στον μεσαίωνα τους κακομεταχειρίζονταν; Βλέπεις συχνά μάγκες με κουρέλια; Ή θα συνεχίζεις να πέφτεις σε ατοπήματα;

[The_Colonel]

Τι εννοεις με το αν μπορεις να κανεις αυτο που εκανε ο Μ.Α.? Τι εκανε? Εκπολιτισε τους...βαρβαρους? Για αναλυσετε το...

Τι ηθελαν για πες?

Αυτό που ζητάς ειναι ασύλληπτο να γίνει στο πλαίσιο ενός ποστ... (και είναι και ένας απο τους λόγους που κρίνεις όπως κρίνεις τον Μέγα Αλέξανδρο μιας και δεν ξέρεις ούτε το έργο αλλά ούτε η παιδεία σου ή οι νοητικές σου δυνατότητες μπορούν να συγκριθούν με τις δικές του γιαυτό κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια, ναι αν ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος είχε το δικό σου ή το δικό μου μυαλό ίσως σκεφτόταν έτσι όπως λες και είχε τα γελοία κίνητρα που πιστεύεις πως είχε.. αλλά ειναι μια προσωπικότητα πολύ πάνω απο εμάς τόσο απο θέμα παιδείας όσο απο θέμα ικανοτήτων, IQ και EQ γιαυτό ειναι μάταιο να θες να μπείς στο μυαλό του.. δεν χωράει στο δικό σου ή στο δικό μου. Όσο λιγότερο στριμώχνεται τόσο περισσότερο μπορείς να εχεις μια γεύση(μόνο) απο το μεγαλείο του συγκεκριμένου Ανθρώπου. )

 

 

Είναι ο πρώτος άνθρωπος που είδε το big picture και δεν εστίαζε στο δέντρο, δημιούργησε την πρώτη παγκόσμια οικονομία (παγκοσμίως )  και τις βάσεις για παγκόσμια εκπαίδευση και συνεργασία. Και τα κατάφερε ολα αυτά μέσα σε 11 χρόνια -αήττητος!!!-   ενώ άλλοι απέτυχαν να κάνουν το ίδιο (ή και πέτυχαν ανάλογα για ποιά φάση της ιστορίας μιλάμε) μέσα σε πολλαπλούς αιώνες συνεχούς προσπάθειας. Και το έκανε σε μια εποχή που κάτι τέτοιο ήταν άπειρα δυσκολότερο να συμβεί λόγω της τότε πολιτιστικής και τεχνολογικής πραγματικότητας. 

 

Στο παρακάτω spoiler σου βάζω ενα απόκομμα απο το έργο "A HISTORY OF PERSIA" τού Sir Percy Molesworth  (link απο το encyclopedia IRANICA - Ιστορικού και διπλωμάτη της Αγγλίας θέση που δεν παίρνει ο κάθε τυχαίος και σίγουρα δεν είχε κανένα προσωπικό ή εθνικό συμφέρον να τον εκθειάσει πέραν τούτου ως στρατιωτικός στην ασία είδε τα έργα του Μέγα Αλεξάνδρου ιδίοις όμμασι) 

 

Αν βαριέσαι να το διαβάσεις όλο τουλάχιστον διάβασε τα γραφόμενα του Πλουτάρχου πάνω πάνω και την παράγραφο περι "The Achievements and Character of Alexander the Great" κάτω κάτω και τουλάχιστον διάβασε τα με προσοχή στην κάθε λεπτομέρεια και μην κάνεις πασάλειμμα σαν να διαβάζεις αδιάφορες αγγελίες σε εφημερίδα.... Επίσης αν βαριέσαι να διαβάσεις τα όσα παρέθεσα και το αντιληφθώ αυτό σε τυχών πόστ σου που θα απευθύνεται σε εμένα δεν θα μπώ στον κόπο να απαντήσω για ευνόητους λόγους.  

 

 

 

 

He taught the Hyrcanians the institution of marriage, theArachosians agriculture; he caused the Soghdians to support, not to kill, their parents; the Persians to respect, not to wed, their mothers. Wondrous philosopher, who made the Scythians bury their dead instead of eating them.—Plutarch on Alexander the Great.

 

The Voyage to the Indian Ocean.—To term the expedition of Alexander to the Indian Ocean a retreat is surely incorrect. Just as of his own will he made the Jaxartes his limit of conquest in the north, so in India his army made the Panjab his limit to the south. But he descended the Jhelum and the Indus as a conqueror, and as a conqueror he traversed the deserts of Gedrosia, subduing and organizing his conquests, until he reached the Southeastern provinces of Persia. Thus he completed an expedition during the course of which, as an examination of the map will prove, few if any centres of importance between Egypt and thePanjab had failed to hear the footsteps of his warriors and feel their might.

 

The great armada started down the Jhelum in the autumn of 326 BC, on a journey which to the sea alone was about nine hundred miles in length, and took nearly a year to accomplish.Nearchus, destined to earn immortal fame as the first of all scientific naval explorers, was in charge of the fleet, which kept carefully defined stations, while divisions of the army marched along both banks. The Chenab was entered, not without danger from the eddies, and Alexander, ever thirsting for fresh laurels, left the river to attack the Malloi, whom he severely harassed. In storming their chief city, generally identified with Multan, he leaped down alone into the stronghold with only three devoted followers, and when the Macedonians came to his assistance he appeared to be mortally wounded. The dismay of the army, to whom it was reported that Alexander was dead, may be imagined, and so may the transport of joy with which he was greeted when sufficiently recovered to endure the fatigue of returning to his camp, where he mounted a horse to prove his convalescence to his soldiers.

 

From Patala, at the apex of the Indus delta, Craterus was dismissed in charge of three brigades, the invalids, and the elephants, with instructions to travel to Persia by the route through the Arachosians and the Zarangians. Alexander sailed down to the Indian Ocean and, in spite of a storm and the still more alarming phenomenon of the tide, which ebbed and left the fleet stranded, he advanced into the open sea, where he sacrificed to Poseidon, and after offering libations threw the goblet into the water as a thank-offering, praying the god to grant Nearchus a successful voyage.

 

The March from the Indus to Susa, 325 bc.—The direction of Alexander’s march through almost the entire length of what is now termed Makran was undoubtedly determined by the knowledge that his fleet, on which he relied to complete this epoch-making expedition, would require assistance; throughout it is clear that his movements were subordinated to this consideration. Knight-errant as he was, his conviction that Semiramis and Cyrus had barely escaped from the deserts of Gedrosia with the loss of almost all their men, would naturally furnish him with an additional incentive to win fresh laurels. Crossing the Arabius, now the Purali, he turned towards the sea to dig wells for the use of the fleet, and then swept the country of the Oreitai to the west, where he followed the same course. He next enteredGedrosia, and for some marches maintained touch with the coast; but even thus early the pinch of hunger was felt, and his soldiers took for their own use the corn which he had collected for the revictualling of the fleet. It was during this stage of the journey that the abundant myrrh and nard, so valued in that age, was collected by the Phoenician sutlers.

 

About one hundred miles from the Arabius the Ras Malan forced the army to turn inland up the Hingol River. This range entirely prevents all access to the sea, and here it was that the sufferings of the troops really began. As Arrian puts it, “the blazing heat and want of water destroyed a great part of the army ... For they met with lofty ridges of sand not hard and compact, but so loose that those who stepped on it sank down as into mud ... tortured alike by raging heat and thirst unquenchable”. In October 1893 I travelled from Chahbar, on the coast of Makran, to Geh and Pahra, in the interior; nowhere have I made so trying a journey, and I appreciated the truthfulness of Arrian’s description. So difficult, indeed, are the conditions in Makran that, had the march been undertaken in summer, it is unlikely that a single survivor would have been left to tell the tale.

 

Alexander regained the coast near Pasni, where he obtained fresh water by digging wells on the seashore, which he followed as far as Gwadur. From this port a natural route leads up a river to the interior, and, realizing that to continue along the coast would involve the total destruction of his force, Alexander led the way to the fertile valley in which Poura or Pura was situated. Here his worn-out men were able to rest.

 

Poura, now termed Pahra by the Baluchis and Fahraj by the Persians, lies in the only really fertile valley of Persian Baluchistan. In the neighborhood are ruins of two older forts, and the site is generally believed to be ancient. Arrian states that Poura was reached in sixty days from Ora, and, as the map makes the distance perhaps six hundred miles, this would, in all the circumstances, be a reasonable distance to be covered in the time. Moreover, the army would naturally recruit at the first fertile district it reached, and would certainly not pass by the valley of the Bampur River. Therefore we may confidently assume that the midwinter was spent in this valley of Baluchistan, and here Alexander regained touch with his Persian Satraps. From Poura the river was followed down to where its waters commingle with those of the Halil Rud in a hamun or lake known as the Jaz Morian, which I discovered in 1894 when I followed the footsteps of Alexander in this section of his great journey. A standing camp was formed in the valley of the Halil Rud, probably in the modern district of Rudbar. Higher up this valley, in 1900, a Greek alabaster unguent vase, dating from the period of Alexander, was found by me. It is now one of my greatest treasures, as there is every reason to believe that it was left behind by the Greek army.

 

It was at this standing camp, where an Alexandria was founded which has been identified with modern Gulashkird, that the weather-beaten and ragged Nearchus appeared. Alexander, seeing him in a miserable plight, feared that his fleet was lost, and we can imagine the joy of all when its safety was announced, and with what fervour sacrifices were offered and honours bestowed.

 

In the valley of the Halil Rud the great army was joined by Craterus, with the baggage and elephants, after a march down the Helmand and across the Lut; and the journey was resumed under the most agreeable conditions, with abundant supplies, and no hostile force to be expected. Nearchus returned to the fleet, which he safely conducted to Ahwaz, and Hephaestion marched along the coast, keeping in touch with it. Alexander, with a picked force of light troops, traversed the districts of Sirjan and Baonat to Pasargadae, where we read of his distress upon finding that the tomb of Cyrus had been desecrated. The great army was reunited at Ahwaz, and crossed the Karun by a bridge. Thence it marched to Susa; and here the greatest expedition recorded in history terminated in triumphal rejoicings and in weddings between the noblest Macedonians and Persians.

 

The Voyage to Babylon.—After a while Alexander, ever chafing at inaction, sailed down the Karun to the Persian Gulf, and, skirting the low-lying coast to the mouth of the Tigris, travelled up this great river to Opis situated above modern Baghdad. The voyage took many months to accomplish and was completed in the summer of 324 BC.

 

At Opis he announced that he intended to dismiss many of his veterans with rich rewards to their homes. This brought to a head the feelings of discontent and jealousy which had been constantly inflamed by the knowledge that thousands of Orientals were being trained to take their places in the ranks, and by the supposed change in Alexander from the mighty War Lord of a free people to an Oriental Despot surrounded by thousands of attendants. The war-worn veterans, deeming themselves slighted, collected in a vast throng and cried out to the King to dismiss them all, and then jeeringly advised him to continue the war in company with his father, the god Ammon. This mutinous behavior enraged Alexander, who ordered the ringleaders to instant execution. He then harangued the army in a stirring speech, demonstrating with much force how he had raised his kingdom from penury to opulence; and then, retiring to his palace, he began to organize Persian footguards, to choose Persian companions, and to give high posts to Persians. This was too much for his men, who implored with tears to be forgiven, and a great banquet marked the reconciliation with their commander.

 

Alexander then marched to the uplands of Media, where he found that the famous breed of Nisaean horses had been seriously diminished through neglect. The death of Hephaestion at Ecbatana was a grievous blow to him; and, finding in strenuous action the best alleviation of his grief, he made a winter expedition against the Cossaeans, who occupied the rugged ranges of Luristan. In spite of the cold and the elusiveness of the enemy, this, his last campaign, was as successful as every other war that he waged. In savage mood he offered up the Cossaeans as a sacrifice to the ghost of Hephaestion.

 

The Great Conqueror now marched towards Babylon, arranging on the way for ships to be constructed in Hyrcania for the exploration of the Caspian Sea. There was at that time no certainty that it was an inland sea, and the Volga was quite unknown. Embassies from many lands, including Carthage, Libya, Ethiopia, Italy, and Gaul, came to offer their congratulations, and such widespread homage must have tended to flatter the pride of the Great Soldier. When he approached Babylon, the priests of Bel begged him not to enter the city; but he rejected their advice, as interested, and marched in triumph into the ancient capital of Asia.

 

The Death of Alexander the Great, 323 BC.—Not content with the vast empire he already possessed, Alexander began almost immediately to prepare for an expedition to Arabia by means of reconnaissances and the construc­tion of a powerful fleet to be manned by Phoenicians. He also made a voyage down the Euphrates and began the construction of a dockyard at Babylon. Suddenly, in the midst of his preparations, he was stricken with fever, probably contracted in the marshes of the Euphrates. He continued to give orders and to offer sacrifices as usual; but at last he became speechless, and after greeting his grief-stricken soldiers as they filed past him, Alexander the Great passed away at the early age of thirty-two, in the height of his fame and the splendid plenitude of his power.

 

An Analysis of Hellenism.—It is important to grasp the effect produced on the Persian Empire by the Greek Conquest; and in order to do so it is necessary to consider for a moment the nature of Hellenism, which was imposed on the East. Bevan, who devotes a brilliant and most suggestive chapter to this subject, lays down that the epoch-making achievement of the Greeks was to brings freedom and civilization into unity; and this is profoundly true. As has been pointed out in dealing with Sumer and Akkad, the dwellers in Babylonia, in consequence mainly of the physical conditions, were certainly not free in the Greek sense of the word; indeed each of the old powers not only rested on slavery but held that even its free subjects were bound to obey any and every order without demur. In Hellas, on the other hand, the physical conditions always made for freedom; but the intense love of freedom prevented Hellas from developing into a great power, and to the end of the history of Greece there was no continuous unity of effort.

 

Macedonia was not strictly a Greek state, being composed of a number of mountain tribes who served an absolute monarch; but that monarch was strongly imbued with all that Hellas could teach, and thus Alexander the Great was the torchbearer of Hellenism, and theDiadochi or “Successors” founded dynasties which were Greek in mind and speech. But, as absolute monarchs, both he and they conflicted with the spirit of Hellenism, which implied a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas entirely opposed to absolutism. The life of the Greek citizen was dominated by his sense of duty to the state, of which he was himself a part, and it was this which gave him his love of freedom, his individuality, and his spirit of enterprise, priceless qualities that raised him above the Asiatic. But the lack of other qualities hindered the Greeks from the steady cooperation necessary to make a united Hellenic people. The Macedonian kings were absolute rulers, and consequently would be regarded as tyrants by the Greeks; yet they were Hellenes, who looked to Athens for fame, and who treated their own country­men in a different spirit from that shown towards the subject Asiatics.

 

A Comparison between the Hellenized and the British Empire.—It is interesting to compare the Greeks with ourselves, and their empire with that of Great Britain. It can certainly be maintained that the class from which the administrators of Great Britain have been mostly drawn is trained at the Public Schools both mentally and physically to produce an average type which in many respects must resemble the best Greek ideals more closely than any other since the downfall of Hellas. Indeed in some ways it even surpasses the highest Greek ideals. This training, in a society which is from many points of view a model republic, produces a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas which no other European race can rival; and this explains the fact that the Englishman is so often an able administrator who, thanks to his love of sport and of physical exercise, can live all over the globe and maintain his health and with it his sane outlook, his initiative, and his energy. Just as Alexander the Great built cantonments at strategical points, where he posted garrisons who led their own lives, so the British of today hold India by a mere handful of administrators and soldiers also living their own lives in cantonments distributed at strategical centres, albeit with their task facilitated of late years by railways and the telegraph.

 

To conclude this comparison, would it be far-fetched to compare the Macedonians with the Scotch, who, descended from wild clansmen, have yet played almost as leading a part in empire-building as was played by the tribesmen of Macedonia under their ever-famous King?

 

The Fruits of Hellenism.—Given then the Greek character, it is reasonable to suppose that in ordinary conditions the position of the subject races would be better than under the rule of Persia, just as the Englishman shows incomparably greater consideration to the Indian than the Indians do to their fellow-countrymen. The Greek generals, we know, followed the example of their king in subduing robber tribes and in introducing law and order. But when once the master mind had been removed by death, furious rivalries and wild ambitions were let loose and the Macedonians spoiled their splendid heritage by incessant campaigns. And yet the spirit remained, and, if the era of strife never entirely passed away, it is to be remembered that the armies engaged were small and the area enormous; and thus we can well believe that, as in India during the Mutiny, quiet progress was constantly made in districts which were not affected by the fighting.

 

A matter of no little importance was the dispersal ot the hoards of the Achaemenians. Although in the firsts place the money was given to Macedonian officers and men and was mainly spent on building temples and on public works in Greece, this unlocking of the treasure-house of Asia increased the trade of the known world enormously. As the roads to the East were open for intercourse of every kind, it is reasonable to suppose that the beneficent power of commerce was stimulated and increased to an extent we cannot easily appreciate.

 

One further point remains for notice. Alexander the Great is made to figure in Persian legend as the destroyer of the Zoroastrian religion. This is in fact a complete misrepresentation. Strabo mentions that he prohibited the barbarous custom of exposing persons at the point of death to the sacred dog, and perhaps it was this and similar actions which make the policy of Alexander appear, to be the very reverse of what it actually was. It must also be remembered that it was through priestly and consequently hostile sources that legends concerning his actions were handed down.

 

The Achievements and Character of Alexander the Great.—It has been well said that Alexander the Great represents the culminating point of Greek civilization both in his achievements and in his character. His achievements were to lead the forces of the poor but virile kingdom of Macedonia, threatened as it constantly was by the states of Hellas and the surrounding tribes, over the known world, conquering, organizing, and civilizing wherever he went. He held together his conquests by justice, by founding cities at strategical points which were occupied by Greeks, and above all by his genius, which was not merely dazzling but attractive. And this gigantic work, which was accomplished in eleven years, held good in many cases for centuries; so that after his death, Arrian tells us, from Hellas to India, Semitic and Turanian states were alike ruled by Greek dynasties permeated with the Hellenic spirit. Again, this extraordinary personality worked to break down the barriers between East and West, and had he succeeded in yoking all Hellas to the noble task the results would have been incomparably greater and more lasting than they were; but even Athens could not rise above local jealousies, and Sparta was ever hostile. This temper in Greece only heightens the achievements of Alexander, which, when the age, the short time, and the circumstances are all considered, stand unrivalled among the deeds of men.

 

In studying his character no one who reads with care the pages of Arrian and of Plutarch can fail to notice the judicial frame of mind in which they are written. The errors and defects of Alexander are neither concealed nor extenuated but set forth plainly, and we are impressed with the fact that we have a truthful, detailed, and impartial account of his life. This being so, does the character of any great conqueror appear finer than that of this fearless knight, who inMakran poured away a precious draught of water in the sight of his army? He was courteous to women, ever athirst for knowledge, and surely worthy of the chief seat at any court of chivalry; true to all, generous, humane, and greedy only of renown. Were he impeached before any conceivable tribunal, could we not fancy him exclaiming, like the great Englishman, Clive, “By God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation”. Moderation, self-control, and the cult of the “proper mean” of Aristotle were among his marked characteristics in all his dealings with his fellows.

 

Alexander was not only the greatest of all soldiers; he was a statesman whose plans were constantly successful, and his love of exploration and of knowledge of all kinds was a ruling passion throughout his life. In parting with perhaps the most famous man who ever trod this earth, I quote the words of his great historian, Arrian : “For my own part, I think there was at that time no race of men, no city, nor even a single individual to whom Alexander’s name and fame had not penetrated. For this reason it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human" being could not have been born without the agency of the deity”.

 

 

 

Εδώ θα δεις ενα πόνημα Ελλήνων ιστορικών για το έργο του και τον αντίκτυπό τους σήμερα 

 

http://lyk-mouzak.kar.sch.gr/autosch/joomla15/images/PROJECT%20MEGAS%20ALEXANDROS%2017-1-2012.pdf

 

Εδώ θα βρεις,μεταξύ άλλων, λεπτομέρειες για ένα άλλο σπουδαίο επίτευγμα που χωρίς Αυτόν δεν θα υπήρχε την βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας

 

http://www.hellinon.net/NeesSelides/VivliothikiAlexandreias.htm (μην ακούσω πάλι χαζοειρωνείες για το domain του link το περιεχόμενο μετράει και οι άλλες δύο πηγές δεν είναι απο link που θα μπορούσαν να λοιδορηθούν... και επαναλαμβάνω το περιεχόμενο μετράει πήγαινε σε μια βιβλιοθήκη και ψάξε τα ίδια θα γράφει απλά δεν κάθισα να βρώ άλλη πηγή που να τα έχει όλα τοσο καλά συμπυκνωμένα για την Βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας ) 

 

 

Αυτά, και όχι μόνον, σκιαγραφούν το δαιδαλώδες εκτόπισμα του Αλεξάνδρου του Μέγα βασιλέα των Μακεδνών. 

 

Εδώ ενα ποίημα το Κ.Π Καβάφη (Αλεξανδρινού ποιητή του 19ού αιώνα γενηθής στην Αλεξάνδρεια της Αιγύπτου, δεν θα υπήρχε αν δεν υπήρχε ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος.)

 

Τίτλος "Στα 200 π.Χ" 

 

«Aλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων—»

 

Μπορούμε κάλλιστα να φαντασθούμε

πως θ’ αδιαφόρησαν παντάπασι στην Σπάρτη

για την επιγραφήν αυτή. «Πλην Λακεδαιμονίων»,

μα φυσικά. Δεν ήσαν οι Σπαρτιάται

για να τους οδηγούν και για να τους προστάζουν

σαν πολυτίμους υπηρέτας. Άλλωστε

μια πανελλήνια εκστρατεία χωρίς

Σπαρτιάτη βασιλέα γι’ αρχηγό

δεν θα τους φαίνονταν πολλής περιωπής.

A βεβαιότατα «πλην Λακεδαιμονίων».

 

Είναι κι αυτή μια στάσις. Νοιώθεται.

 

Έτσι, πλην Λακεδαιμονίων στον Γρανικό·

και στην Ισσό μετά· και στην τελειωτική

την μάχη, όπου εσαρώθη ο φοβερός στρατός

που στ’ Άρβηλα συγκέντρωσαν οι Πέρσαι:

που απ’ τ’ Άρβηλα ξεκίνησε για νίκην, κ’ εσαρώθη.

 

Κι απ’ την θαυμάσια πανελλήνιαν εκστρατεία,

την νικηφόρα, την περίλαμπρη,

την περιλάλητη, την δοξασμένη

ως άλλη δεν δοξάσθηκε καμιά,

την απαράμιλλη: βγήκαμ’ εμείς·

ελληνικός καινούριος κόσμος, μέγας.

 

Εμείς· οι Aλεξανδρείς, οι Aντιοχείς,

οι Σελευκείς, κ’ οι πολυάριθμοι

επίλοιποι Έλληνες Aιγύπτου και Συρίας,

κ’ οι εν Μηδία, κ’ οι εν Περσίδι, κι όσοι άλλοι.

Με τες εκτεταμένες επικράτειες,

με την ποικίλη δράσι των στοχαστικών προσαρμογών.

Και την Κοινήν Ελληνική Λαλιά

ώς μέσα στην Βακτριανή την πήγαμεν, ώς τους Ινδούς.

 

Για Λακεδαιμονίους να μιλούμε τώρα! 

  (Από τα Ποιήματα 1897-1933, Ίκαρος 1984) 

 

 

Βέβαια όλα αυτά σήμερα ξεχασμένα {(τυχαία; ) το κράτος-τυχαία; - παρατάει όλες τις πρεσβείες σε αυτές τις περιοχές στην μοίρα τους - ποιος βασικά απο εσάς ξέρει ότι υπάρχουν ακόμη έλληνες και ελληνικά σχολεία εκει και πολλά ελληνικά έργα -περισσότερα και αυτά που βρίσκονται στην Ελλάδα- σε αυτές τις περιοχές; ή στην νότια Ιταλία; στην βόρειο ήπειρο;} και καταπλακωμένα απο τόνους λάσπη της αγέλης των "πολιτών του κόσμου" νεοελλήνων προχό.. που με την μοναδική δικαιολογία του να μην χαρακτηριστούν λιακοπουλικοί δεν διστάζουν να μπήξουν το μαχαίρι ακόμη πιο βαθιά στην πολιτιστική μας κληρονομιά και να αφανίσουν κάθε ελπίδα να ζούμε ελληνικά... καλύτερα ειναι να αλλωτριωθούμε στα ξένα συστήματα μας φτάνει το Iphone και η νυχτερινή έξοδος μας ποιός την χέζει την πατρίδα.. δεν υπάρχουν σύνορά και κληρονομιά

Επεξ/σία 7 Σεπτεμβρίου 2014 από The_Colonel

[man of steel]

Αυτό που ζητάς ειναι ασύλληπτο να γίνει στο πλαίσιο ενός ποστ... (και είναι και ένας απο τους λόγους που κρίνεις όπως κρίνεις τον Μέγα Αλέξανδρο μιας και δεν ξέρεις ούτε το έργο αλλά ούτε η παιδεία σου ή οι νοητικές σου δυνατότητες μπορούν να συγκριθούν με τις δικές του γιαυτό κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια, ναι αν ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος είχε το δικό σου ή το δικό μου μυαλό ίσως σκεφτόταν έτσι όπως λες και είχε τα γελοία κίνητρα που πιστεύεις πως είχε.. αλλά ειναι μια προσωπικότητα πολύ πάνω απο εμάς τόσο απο θέμα παιδείας όσο απο θέμα ικανοτήτων, IQ και EQ γιαυτό ειναι μάταιο να θες να μπείς στο μυαλό του.. δεν χωράει στο δικό σου ή στο δικό μου. Όσο λιγότερο στριμώχνεται τόσο περισσότερο μπορείς να εχεις μια γεύση(μόνο) απο το μεγαλείο του συγκεκριμένου Ανθρώπου. )

 

 

Είναι ο πρώτος άνθρωπος που είδε το big picture και δεν εστίαζε στο δέντρο, δημιούργησε την πρώτη παγκόσμια οικονομία (παγκοσμίως )  και τις βάσεις για παγκόσμια εκπαίδευση και συνεργασία. Και τα κατάφερε ολα αυτά μέσα σε 11 χρόνια -αήττητος!!!-   ενώ άλλοι απέτυχαν να κάνουν το ίδιο (ή και πέτυχαν ανάλογα για ποιά φάση της ιστορίας μιλάμε) μέσα σε πολλαπλούς αιώνες συνεχούς προσπάθειας. Και το έκανε σε μια εποχή που κάτι τέτοιο ήταν άπειρα δυσκολότερο να συμβεί λόγω της τότε πολιτιστικής και τεχνολογικής πραγματικότητας. 

 

Στο παρακάτω spoiler σου βάζω ενα απόκομμα απο το έργο "A HISTORY OF PERSIA" τού Sir Percy Molesworth  (link απο το encyclopedia IRANICA - Ιστορικού και διπλωμάτη της Αγγλίας θέση που δεν παίρνει ο κάθε τυχαίος και σίγουρα δεν είχε κανένα προσωπικό ή εθνικό συμφέρον να τον εκθειάσει πέραν τούτου ως στρατιωτικός στην ασία είδε τα έργα του Μέγα Αλεξάνδρου ιδίοις όμμασι) 

 

Αν βαριέσαι να το διαβάσεις όλο τουλάχιστον διάβασε τα γραφόμενα του Πλουτάρχου πάνω πάνω και την παράγραφο περι "The Achievements and Character of Alexander the Great" κάτω κάτω και τουλάχιστον διάβασε τα με προσοχή στην κάθε λεπτομέρεια και μην κάνεις πασάλειμμα σαν να διαβάζεις αδιάφορες αγγελίες σε εφημερίδα.... Επίσης αν βαριέσαι να διαβάσεις τα όσα παρέθεσα και το αντιληφθώ αυτό σε τυχών πόστ σου που θα απευθύνεται σε εμένα δεν θα μπώ στον κόπο να απαντήσω για ευνόητους λόγους.  

 

 

 

 

He taught the Hyrcanians the institution of marriage, theArachosians agriculture; he caused the Soghdians to support, not to kill, their parents; the Persians to respect, not to wed, their mothers. Wondrous philosopher, who made the Scythians bury their dead instead of eating them.—Plutarch on Alexander the Great.

 

The Voyage to the Indian Ocean.—To term the expedition of Alexander to the Indian Ocean a retreat is surely incorrect. Just as of his own will he made the Jaxartes his limit of conquest in the north, so in India his army made the Panjab his limit to the south. But he descended the Jhelum and the Indus as a conqueror, and as a conqueror he traversed the deserts of Gedrosia, subduing and organizing his conquests, until he reached the Southeastern provinces of Persia. Thus he completed an expedition during the course of which, as an examination of the map will prove, few if any centres of importance between Egypt and thePanjab had failed to hear the footsteps of his warriors and feel their might.

 

The great armada started down the Jhelum in the autumn of 326 BC, on a journey which to the sea alone was about nine hundred miles in length, and took nearly a year to accomplish.Nearchus, destined to earn immortal fame as the first of all scientific naval explorers, was in charge of the fleet, which kept carefully defined stations, while divisions of the army marched along both banks. The Chenab was entered, not without danger from the eddies, and Alexander, ever thirsting for fresh laurels, left the river to attack the Malloi, whom he severely harassed. In storming their chief city, generally identified with Multan, he leaped down alone into the stronghold with only three devoted followers, and when the Macedonians came to his assistance he appeared to be mortally wounded. The dismay of the army, to whom it was reported that Alexander was dead, may be imagined, and so may the transport of joy with which he was greeted when sufficiently recovered to endure the fatigue of returning to his camp, where he mounted a horse to prove his convalescence to his soldiers.

 

From Patala, at the apex of the Indus delta, Craterus was dismissed in charge of three brigades, the invalids, and the elephants, with instructions to travel to Persia by the route through the Arachosians and the Zarangians. Alexander sailed down to the Indian Ocean and, in spite of a storm and the still more alarming phenomenon of the tide, which ebbed and left the fleet stranded, he advanced into the open sea, where he sacrificed to Poseidon, and after offering libations threw the goblet into the water as a thank-offering, praying the god to grant Nearchus a successful voyage.

 

The March from the Indus to Susa, 325 bc.—The direction of Alexander’s march through almost the entire length of what is now termed Makran was undoubtedly determined by the knowledge that his fleet, on which he relied to complete this epoch-making expedition, would require assistance; throughout it is clear that his movements were subordinated to this consideration. Knight-errant as he was, his conviction that Semiramis and Cyrus had barely escaped from the deserts of Gedrosia with the loss of almost all their men, would naturally furnish him with an additional incentive to win fresh laurels. Crossing the Arabius, now the Purali, he turned towards the sea to dig wells for the use of the fleet, and then swept the country of the Oreitai to the west, where he followed the same course. He next enteredGedrosia, and for some marches maintained touch with the coast; but even thus early the pinch of hunger was felt, and his soldiers took for their own use the corn which he had collected for the revictualling of the fleet. It was during this stage of the journey that the abundant myrrh and nard, so valued in that age, was collected by the Phoenician sutlers.

 

About one hundred miles from the Arabius the Ras Malan forced the army to turn inland up the Hingol River. This range entirely prevents all access to the sea, and here it was that the sufferings of the troops really began. As Arrian puts it, “the blazing heat and want of water destroyed a great part of the army ... For they met with lofty ridges of sand not hard and compact, but so loose that those who stepped on it sank down as into mud ... tortured alike by raging heat and thirst unquenchable”. In October 1893 I travelled from Chahbar, on the coast of Makran, to Geh and Pahra, in the interior; nowhere have I made so trying a journey, and I appreciated the truthfulness of Arrian’s description. So difficult, indeed, are the conditions in Makran that, had the march been undertaken in summer, it is unlikely that a single survivor would have been left to tell the tale.

 

Alexander regained the coast near Pasni, where he obtained fresh water by digging wells on the seashore, which he followed as far as Gwadur. From this port a natural route leads up a river to the interior, and, realizing that to continue along the coast would involve the total destruction of his force, Alexander led the way to the fertile valley in which Poura or Pura was situated. Here his worn-out men were able to rest.

 

Poura, now termed Pahra by the Baluchis and Fahraj by the Persians, lies in the only really fertile valley of Persian Baluchistan. In the neighborhood are ruins of two older forts, and the site is generally believed to be ancient. Arrian states that Poura was reached in sixty days from Ora, and, as the map makes the distance perhaps six hundred miles, this would, in all the circumstances, be a reasonable distance to be covered in the time. Moreover, the army would naturally recruit at the first fertile district it reached, and would certainly not pass by the valley of the Bampur River. Therefore we may confidently assume that the midwinter was spent in this valley of Baluchistan, and here Alexander regained touch with his Persian Satraps. From Poura the river was followed down to where its waters commingle with those of the Halil Rud in a hamun or lake known as the Jaz Morian, which I discovered in 1894 when I followed the footsteps of Alexander in this section of his great journey. A standing camp was formed in the valley of the Halil Rud, probably in the modern district of Rudbar. Higher up this valley, in 1900, a Greek alabaster unguent vase, dating from the period of Alexander, was found by me. It is now one of my greatest treasures, as there is every reason to believe that it was left behind by the Greek army.

 

It was at this standing camp, where an Alexandria was founded which has been identified with modern Gulashkird, that the weather-beaten and ragged Nearchus appeared. Alexander, seeing him in a miserable plight, feared that his fleet was lost, and we can imagine the joy of all when its safety was announced, and with what fervour sacrifices were offered and honours bestowed.

 

In the valley of the Halil Rud the great army was joined by Craterus, with the baggage and elephants, after a march down the Helmand and across the Lut; and the journey was resumed under the most agreeable conditions, with abundant supplies, and no hostile force to be expected. Nearchus returned to the fleet, which he safely conducted to Ahwaz, and Hephaestion marched along the coast, keeping in touch with it. Alexander, with a picked force of light troops, traversed the districts of Sirjan and Baonat to Pasargadae, where we read of his distress upon finding that the tomb of Cyrus had been desecrated. The great army was reunited at Ahwaz, and crossed the Karun by a bridge. Thence it marched to Susa; and here the greatest expedition recorded in history terminated in triumphal rejoicings and in weddings between the noblest Macedonians and Persians.

 

The Voyage to Babylon.—After a while Alexander, ever chafing at inaction, sailed down the Karun to the Persian Gulf, and, skirting the low-lying coast to the mouth of the Tigris, travelled up this great river to Opis situated above modern Baghdad. The voyage took many months to accomplish and was completed in the summer of 324 BC.

 

At Opis he announced that he intended to dismiss many of his veterans with rich rewards to their homes. This brought to a head the feelings of discontent and jealousy which had been constantly inflamed by the knowledge that thousands of Orientals were being trained to take their places in the ranks, and by the supposed change in Alexander from the mighty War Lord of a free people to an Oriental Despot surrounded by thousands of attendants. The war-worn veterans, deeming themselves slighted, collected in a vast throng and cried out to the King to dismiss them all, and then jeeringly advised him to continue the war in company with his father, the god Ammon. This mutinous behavior enraged Alexander, who ordered the ringleaders to instant execution. He then harangued the army in a stirring speech, demonstrating with much force how he had raised his kingdom from penury to opulence; and then, retiring to his palace, he began to organize Persian footguards, to choose Persian companions, and to give high posts to Persians. This was too much for his men, who implored with tears to be forgiven, and a great banquet marked the reconciliation with their commander.

 

Alexander then marched to the uplands of Media, where he found that the famous breed of Nisaean horses had been seriously diminished through neglect. The death of Hephaestion at Ecbatana was a grievous blow to him; and, finding in strenuous action the best alleviation of his grief, he made a winter expedition against the Cossaeans, who occupied the rugged ranges of Luristan. In spite of the cold and the elusiveness of the enemy, this, his last campaign, was as successful as every other war that he waged. In savage mood he offered up the Cossaeans as a sacrifice to the ghost of Hephaestion.

 

The Great Conqueror now marched towards Babylon, arranging on the way for ships to be constructed in Hyrcania for the exploration of the Caspian Sea. There was at that time no certainty that it was an inland sea, and the Volga was quite unknown. Embassies from many lands, including Carthage, Libya, Ethiopia, Italy, and Gaul, came to offer their congratulations, and such widespread homage must have tended to flatter the pride of the Great Soldier. When he approached Babylon, the priests of Bel begged him not to enter the city; but he rejected their advice, as interested, and marched in triumph into the ancient capital of Asia.

 

The Death of Alexander the Great, 323 BC.—Not content with the vast empire he already possessed, Alexander began almost immediately to prepare for an expedition to Arabia by means of reconnaissances and the construc­tion of a powerful fleet to be manned by Phoenicians. He also made a voyage down the Euphrates and began the construction of a dockyard at Babylon. Suddenly, in the midst of his preparations, he was stricken with fever, probably contracted in the marshes of the Euphrates. He continued to give orders and to offer sacrifices as usual; but at last he became speechless, and after greeting his grief-stricken soldiers as they filed past him, Alexander the Great passed away at the early age of thirty-two, in the height of his fame and the splendid plenitude of his power.

 

An Analysis of Hellenism.—It is important to grasp the effect produced on the Persian Empire by the Greek Conquest; and in order to do so it is necessary to consider for a moment the nature of Hellenism, which was imposed on the East. Bevan, who devotes a brilliant and most suggestive chapter to this subject, lays down that the epoch-making achievement of the Greeks was to brings freedom and civilization into unity; and this is profoundly true. As has been pointed out in dealing with Sumer and Akkad, the dwellers in Babylonia, in consequence mainly of the physical conditions, were certainly not free in the Greek sense of the word; indeed each of the old powers not only rested on slavery but held that even its free subjects were bound to obey any and every order without demur. In Hellas, on the other hand, the physical conditions always made for freedom; but the intense love of freedom prevented Hellas from developing into a great power, and to the end of the history of Greece there was no continuous unity of effort.

 

Macedonia was not strictly a Greek state, being composed of a number of mountain tribes who served an absolute monarch; but that monarch was strongly imbued with all that Hellas could teach, and thus Alexander the Great was the torchbearer of Hellenism, and theDiadochi or “Successors” founded dynasties which were Greek in mind and speech. But, as absolute monarchs, both he and they conflicted with the spirit of Hellenism, which implied a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas entirely opposed to absolutism. The life of the Greek citizen was dominated by his sense of duty to the state, of which he was himself a part, and it was this which gave him his love of freedom, his individuality, and his spirit of enterprise, priceless qualities that raised him above the Asiatic. But the lack of other qualities hindered the Greeks from the steady cooperation necessary to make a united Hellenic people. The Macedonian kings were absolute rulers, and consequently would be regarded as tyrants by the Greeks; yet they were Hellenes, who looked to Athens for fame, and who treated their own country­men in a different spirit from that shown towards the subject Asiatics.

 

A Comparison between the Hellenized and the British Empire.—It is interesting to compare the Greeks with ourselves, and their empire with that of Great Britain. It can certainly be maintained that the class from which the administrators of Great Britain have been mostly drawn is trained at the Public Schools both mentally and physically to produce an average type which in many respects must resemble the best Greek ideals more closely than any other since the downfall of Hellas. Indeed in some ways it even surpasses the highest Greek ideals. This training, in a society which is from many points of view a model republic, produces a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas which no other European race can rival; and this explains the fact that the Englishman is so often an able administrator who, thanks to his love of sport and of physical exercise, can live all over the globe and maintain his health and with it his sane outlook, his initiative, and his energy. Just as Alexander the Great built cantonments at strategical points, where he posted garrisons who led their own lives, so the British of today hold India by a mere handful of administrators and soldiers also living their own lives in cantonments distributed at strategical centres, albeit with their task facilitated of late years by railways and the telegraph.

 

To conclude this comparison, would it be far-fetched to compare the Macedonians with the Scotch, who, descended from wild clansmen, have yet played almost as leading a part in empire-building as was played by the tribesmen of Macedonia under their ever-famous King?

 

The Fruits of Hellenism.—Given then the Greek character, it is reasonable to suppose that in ordinary conditions the position of the subject races would be better than under the rule of Persia, just as the Englishman shows incomparably greater consideration to the Indian than the Indians do to their fellow-countrymen. The Greek generals, we know, followed the example of their king in subduing robber tribes and in introducing law and order. But when once the master mind had been removed by death, furious rivalries and wild ambitions were let loose and the Macedonians spoiled their splendid heritage by incessant campaigns. And yet the spirit remained, and, if the era of strife never entirely passed away, it is to be remembered that the armies engaged were small and the area enormous; and thus we can well believe that, as in India during the Mutiny, quiet progress was constantly made in districts which were not affected by the fighting.

 

A matter of no little importance was the dispersal ot the hoards of the Achaemenians. Although in the firsts place the money was given to Macedonian officers and men and was mainly spent on building temples and on public works in Greece, this unlocking of the treasure-house of Asia increased the trade of the known world enormously. As the roads to the East were open for intercourse of every kind, it is reasonable to suppose that the beneficent power of commerce was stimulated and increased to an extent we cannot easily appreciate.

 

One further point remains for notice. Alexander the Great is made to figure in Persian legend as the destroyer of the Zoroastrian religion. This is in fact a complete misrepresentation. Strabo mentions that he prohibited the barbarous custom of exposing persons at the point of death to the sacred dog, and perhaps it was this and similar actions which make the policy of Alexander appear, to be the very reverse of what it actually was. It must also be remembered that it was through priestly and consequently hostile sources that legends concerning his actions were handed down.

 

The Achievements and Character of Alexander the Great.—It has been well said that Alexander the Great represents the culminating point of Greek civilization both in his achievements and in his character. His achievements were to lead the forces of the poor but virile kingdom of Macedonia, threatened as it constantly was by the states of Hellas and the surrounding tribes, over the known world, conquering, organizing, and civilizing wherever he went. He held together his conquests by justice, by founding cities at strategical points which were occupied by Greeks, and above all by his genius, which was not merely dazzling but attractive. And this gigantic work, which was accomplished in eleven years, held good in many cases for centuries; so that after his death, Arrian tells us, from Hellas to India, Semitic and Turanian states were alike ruled by Greek dynasties permeated with the Hellenic spirit. Again, this extraordinary personality worked to break down the barriers between East and West, and had he succeeded in yoking all Hellas to the noble task the results would have been incomparably greater and more lasting than they were; but even Athens could not rise above local jealousies, and Sparta was ever hostile. This temper in Greece only heightens the achievements of Alexander, which, when the age, the short time, and the circumstances are all considered, stand unrivalled among the deeds of men.

 

In studying his character no one who reads with care the pages of Arrian and of Plutarch can fail to notice the judicial frame of mind in which they are written. The errors and defects of Alexander are neither concealed nor extenuated but set forth plainly, and we are impressed with the fact that we have a truthful, detailed, and impartial account of his life. This being so, does the character of any great conqueror appear finer than that of this fearless knight, who inMakran poured away a precious draught of water in the sight of his army? He was courteous to women, ever athirst for knowledge, and surely worthy of the chief seat at any court of chivalry; true to all, generous, humane, and greedy only of renown. Were he impeached before any conceivable tribunal, could we not fancy him exclaiming, like the great Englishman, Clive, “By God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation”. Moderation, self-control, and the cult of the “proper mean” of Aristotle were among his marked characteristics in all his dealings with his fellows.

 

Alexander was not only the greatest of all soldiers; he was a statesman whose plans were constantly successful, and his love of exploration and of knowledge of all kinds was a ruling passion throughout his life. In parting with perhaps the most famous man who ever trod this earth, I quote the words of his great historian, Arrian : “For my own part, I think there was at that time no race of men, no city, nor even a single individual to whom Alexander’s name and fame had not penetrated. For this reason it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human" being could not have been born without the agency of the deity”.

 

 

 

Εδώ θα δεις ενα πόνημα Ελλήνων ιστορικών για το έργο του και τον αντίκτυπό τους σήμερα 

 

http://lyk-mouzak.kar.sch.gr/autosch/joomla15/images/PROJECT%20MEGAS%20ALEXANDROS%2017-1-2012.pdf

 

Εδώ θα βρεις,μεταξύ άλλων, λεπτομέρειες για ένα άλλο σπουδαίο επίτευγμα που χωρίς Αυτόν δεν θα υπήρχε την βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας

 

http://www.hellinon.net/NeesSelides/VivliothikiAlexandreias.htm (μην ακούσω πάλι χαζοειρωνείες για το domain του link το περιεχόμενο μετράει και οι άλλες δύο πηγές δεν είναι απο link που θα μπορούσαν να λοιδορηθούν... και επαναλαμβάνω το περιεχόμενο μετράει πήγαινε σε μια βιβλιοθήκη και ψάξε τα ίδια θα γράφει απλά δεν κάθισα να βρώ άλλη πηγή που να τα έχει όλα τοσο καλά συμπυκνωμένα για την Βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας ) 

 

 

Αυτά, και όχι μόνον, σκιαγραφούν το δαιδαλώδες εκτόπισμα του Αλεξάνδρου του Μέγα βασιλέα των Μακεδνών. 

 

Εδώ ενα ποίημα το Κ.Π Καβάφη (Αλεξανδρινού ποιητή του 19ού αιώνα γενηθής στην Αλεξάνδρεια της Αιγύπτου, δεν θα υπήρχε αν δεν υπήρχε ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος.)

 

Τίτλος "Στα 200 π.Χ" 

 

«Aλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων—»

 

Μπορούμε κάλλιστα να φαντασθούμε

πως θ’ αδιαφόρησαν παντάπασι στην Σπάρτη

για την επιγραφήν αυτή. «Πλην Λακεδαιμονίων»,

μα φυσικά. Δεν ήσαν οι Σπαρτιάται

για να τους οδηγούν και για να τους προστάζουν

σαν πολυτίμους υπηρέτας. Άλλωστε

μια πανελλήνια εκστρατεία χωρίς

Σπαρτιάτη βασιλέα γι’ αρχηγό

δεν θα τους φαίνονταν πολλής περιωπής.

A βεβαιότατα «πλην Λακεδαιμονίων».

 

Είναι κι αυτή μια στάσις. Νοιώθεται.

 

Έτσι, πλην Λακεδαιμονίων στον Γρανικό·

και στην Ισσό μετά· και στην τελειωτική

την μάχη, όπου εσαρώθη ο φοβερός στρατός

που στ’ Άρβηλα συγκέντρωσαν οι Πέρσαι:

που απ’ τ’ Άρβηλα ξεκίνησε για νίκην, κ’ εσαρώθη.

 

Κι απ’ την θαυμάσια πανελλήνιαν εκστρατεία,

την νικηφόρα, την περίλαμπρη,

την περιλάλητη, την δοξασμένη

ως άλλη δεν δοξάσθηκε καμιά,

την απαράμιλλη: βγήκαμ’ εμείς·

ελληνικός καινούριος κόσμος, μέγας.

 

Εμείς· οι Aλεξανδρείς, οι Aντιοχείς,

οι Σελευκείς, κ’ οι πολυάριθμοι

επίλοιποι Έλληνες Aιγύπτου και Συρίας,

κ’ οι εν Μηδία, κ’ οι εν Περσίδι, κι όσοι άλλοι.

Με τες εκτεταμένες επικράτειες,

με την ποικίλη δράσι των στοχαστικών προσαρμογών.

Και την Κοινήν Ελληνική Λαλιά

ώς μέσα στην Βακτριανή την πήγαμεν, ώς τους Ινδούς.

 

Για Λακεδαιμονίους να μιλούμε τώρα! 

  (Από τα Ποιήματα 1897-1933, Ίκαρος 1984) 

 

 

Βέβαια όλα αυτά σήμερα ξεχασμένα {(τυχαία; ) το κράτος-τυχαία; - παρατάει όλες τις πρεσβείες σε αυτές τις περιοχές στην μοίρα τους - ποιος βασικά απο εσάς ξέρει ότι υπάρχουν ακόμη έλληνες και ελληνικά σχολεία εκει και πολλά ελληνικά έργα -περισσότερα και αυτά που βρίσκονται στην Ελλάδα- σε αυτές τις περιοχές; ή στην νότια Ιταλία; στην βόρειο ήπειρο;} και καταπλακωμένα απο τόνους λάσπη της αγέλης των "πολιτών του κόσμου" νεοελλήνων προχό.. που με την μοναδική δικαιολογία του να μην χαρακτηριστούν λιακοπουλικοί δεν διστάζουν να μπήξουν το μαχαίρι ακόμη πιο βαθιά στην πολιτιστική μας κληρονομιά και να αφανίσουν κάθε ελπίδα να ζούμε ελληνικά... καλύτερα ειναι να αλλωτριωθούμε στα ξένα συστήματα μας φτάνει το Iphone και η νυχτερινή έξοδος μας ποιός την χέζει την πατρίδα.. δεν υπάρχουν σύνορά και κληρονομιά

Καλά τι του λες και εσύ;Άστο καλύτερα πες του για τον Μουρίνιο.Εκεί όντως έχει ειδικότητα...

[CROM271]

Το ονειρο και το οραμα της ''υδρογειου ενωσις'' το ειχε και ο Χιτλερ...

 

Το γεγονος οτι ο Αλεξανδρος περασε καποιες ελληνικες γνωσεις και πολιτιστικη κουλτουρα ειτε δια βιας ειτε ειρηνικα αν εβρισκε αποδεκτες δεν αναιρουν το γεγονος οτι ηταν σφαγεας και κατακτητης...

 

Ο πραγματικος σκοπος της εκστρατειας βεβαια δεν ηταν να διαδωσει πολιτισμο. Ο σκοπος ηταν η εξασφαλιση του μακεδονικου κρατους ως ενα σημειο, η εκδικηση κατα των Περσων και φυσικα τα αμυθητα πλουτη, η κυριρχια και η μεγαλομανια...

 

Τωρα αν εσυ πιστευεις οτι εκανε εκπολιτιστικο εργο με βια, αιμα και σκοτωμους ειναι ενα θεμα... Γιατι εγω αλλιως ξερω πως παραγεται και διαδιδεται ο πολιτισμος. Σιγουρα οχι υποδουλωνοντας λαους και σφαζοντας οσους δεν θελουν να ''εκπολιτιστουν''

Καλά τι του λες και εσύ;Άστο καλύτερα πες του για τον Μουρίνιο.Εκεί όντως έχει ειδικότητα...

Τουλαχιστον αυτος κατι προσπαθει να πει και δεν κανει 40 χρονων ανθρωπος σαν παιδακι δημοτικου...

Εσυ βρες κανεναν να παιξεις καμια δηλωτη ή τραβα να γραψεις καμια μ@λ@κιουλα για τον ολυμπιακο και τον φαταουλα. Γιατι εδω δεν...

Επεξ/σία 7 Σεπτεμβρίου 2014 από CROM271

[liopyr]

δεν διστάζουν να μπήξουν το μαχαίρι ακόμη πιο βαθιά στην πολιτιστική μας κληρονομιά και να αφανίσουν κάθε ελπίδα να ζούμε ελληνικά...

 

Άστα να πάνε με αυτούς τους κακούς που μπήγουν το μαχαίρι. Μας έχουν ταράξει.

Μία ζούμε ιταλικά, μία ισπανικά, μία αργεντίνικα. Σε ησυχία δεν μας αφήνουν.

 

[LongTom]

 

Αυτό που ζητάς ειναι ασύλληπτο να γίνει στο πλαίσιο ενός ποστ... (και είναι και ένας απο τους λόγους που κρίνεις όπως κρίνεις τον Μέγα Αλέξανδρο μιας και δεν ξέρεις ούτε το έργο αλλά ούτε η παιδεία σου ή οι νοητικές σου δυνατότητες μπορούν να συγκριθούν με τις δικές του γιαυτό κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια, ναι αν ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος είχε το δικό σου ή το δικό μου μυαλό ίσως σκεφτόταν έτσι όπως λες και είχε τα γελοία κίνητρα που πιστεύεις πως είχε.. αλλά ειναι μια προσωπικότητα πολύ πάνω απο εμάς τόσο απο θέμα παιδείας όσο απο θέμα ικανοτήτων, IQ και EQ γιαυτό ειναι μάταιο να θες να μπείς στο μυαλό του.. δεν χωράει στο δικό σου ή στο δικό μου. Όσο λιγότερο στριμώχνεται τόσο περισσότερο μπορείς να εχεις μια γεύση(μόνο) απο το μεγαλείο του συγκεκριμένου Ανθρώπου. )

 

 

Είναι ο πρώτος άνθρωπος που είδε το big picture και δεν εστίαζε στο δέντρο, δημιούργησε την πρώτη παγκόσμια οικονομία (παγκοσμίως )  και τις βάσεις για παγκόσμια εκπαίδευση και συνεργασία. Και τα κατάφερε ολα αυτά μέσα σε 11 χρόνια -αήττητος!!!-   ενώ άλλοι απέτυχαν να κάνουν το ίδιο (ή και πέτυχαν ανάλογα για ποιά φάση της ιστορίας μιλάμε) μέσα σε πολλαπλούς αιώνες συνεχούς προσπάθειας. Και το έκανε σε μια εποχή που κάτι τέτοιο ήταν άπειρα δυσκολότερο να συμβεί λόγω της τότε πολιτιστικής και τεχνολογικής πραγματικότητας. 

 

Στο παρακάτω spoiler σου βάζω ενα απόκομμα απο το έργο "A HISTORY OF PERSIA" τού Sir Percy Molesworth  (link απο το encyclopedia IRANICA - Ιστορικού και διπλωμάτη της Αγγλίας θέση που δεν παίρνει ο κάθε τυχαίος και σίγουρα δεν είχε κανένα προσωπικό ή εθνικό συμφέρον να τον εκθειάσει πέραν τούτου ως στρατιωτικός στην ασία είδε τα έργα του Μέγα Αλεξάνδρου ιδίοις όμμασι) 

 

Αν βαριέσαι να το διαβάσεις όλο τουλάχιστον διάβασε τα γραφόμενα του Πλουτάρχου πάνω πάνω και την παράγραφο περι "The Achievements and Character of Alexander the Great" κάτω κάτω και τουλάχιστον διάβασε τα με προσοχή στην κάθε λεπτομέρεια και μην κάνεις πασάλειμμα σαν να διαβάζεις αδιάφορες αγγελίες σε εφημερίδα.... Επίσης αν βαριέσαι να διαβάσεις τα όσα παρέθεσα και το αντιληφθώ αυτό σε τυχών πόστ σου που θα απευθύνεται σε εμένα δεν θα μπώ στον κόπο να απαντήσω για ευνόητους λόγους.  

 

 

 

 

He taught the Hyrcanians the institution of marriage, theArachosians agriculture; he caused the Soghdians to support, not to kill, their parents; the Persians to respect, not to wed, their mothers. Wondrous philosopher, who made the Scythians bury their dead instead of eating them.—Plutarch on Alexander the Great.

 

The Voyage to the Indian Ocean.—To term the expedition of Alexander to the Indian Ocean a retreat is surely incorrect. Just as of his own will he made the Jaxartes his limit of conquest in the north, so in India his army made the Panjab his limit to the south. But he descended the Jhelum and the Indus as a conqueror, and as a conqueror he traversed the deserts of Gedrosia, subduing and organizing his conquests, until he reached the Southeastern provinces of Persia. Thus he completed an expedition during the course of which, as an examination of the map will prove, few if any centres of importance between Egypt and thePanjab had failed to hear the footsteps of his warriors and feel their might.

 

The great armada started down the Jhelum in the autumn of 326 BC, on a journey which to the sea alone was about nine hundred miles in length, and took nearly a year to accomplish.Nearchus, destined to earn immortal fame as the first of all scientific naval explorers, was in charge of the fleet, which kept carefully defined stations, while divisions of the army marched along both banks. The Chenab was entered, not without danger from the eddies, and Alexander, ever thirsting for fresh laurels, left the river to attack the Malloi, whom he severely harassed. In storming their chief city, generally identified with Multan, he leaped down alone into the stronghold with only three devoted followers, and when the Macedonians came to his assistance he appeared to be mortally wounded. The dismay of the army, to whom it was reported that Alexander was dead, may be imagined, and so may the transport of joy with which he was greeted when sufficiently recovered to endure the fatigue of returning to his camp, where he mounted a horse to prove his convalescence to his soldiers.

 

From Patala, at the apex of the Indus delta, Craterus was dismissed in charge of three brigades, the invalids, and the elephants, with instructions to travel to Persia by the route through the Arachosians and the Zarangians. Alexander sailed down to the Indian Ocean and, in spite of a storm and the still more alarming phenomenon of the tide, which ebbed and left the fleet stranded, he advanced into the open sea, where he sacrificed to Poseidon, and after offering libations threw the goblet into the water as a thank-offering, praying the god to grant Nearchus a successful voyage.

 

The March from the Indus to Susa, 325 bc.—The direction of Alexander’s march through almost the entire length of what is now termed Makran was undoubtedly determined by the knowledge that his fleet, on which he relied to complete this epoch-making expedition, would require assistance; throughout it is clear that his movements were subordinated to this consideration. Knight-errant as he was, his conviction that Semiramis and Cyrus had barely escaped from the deserts of Gedrosia with the loss of almost all their men, would naturally furnish him with an additional incentive to win fresh laurels. Crossing the Arabius, now the Purali, he turned towards the sea to dig wells for the use of the fleet, and then swept the country of the Oreitai to the west, where he followed the same course. He next enteredGedrosia, and for some marches maintained touch with the coast; but even thus early the pinch of hunger was felt, and his soldiers took for their own use the corn which he had collected for the revictualling of the fleet. It was during this stage of the journey that the abundant myrrh and nard, so valued in that age, was collected by the Phoenician sutlers.

 

About one hundred miles from the Arabius the Ras Malan forced the army to turn inland up the Hingol River. This range entirely prevents all access to the sea, and here it was that the sufferings of the troops really began. As Arrian puts it, “the blazing heat and want of water destroyed a great part of the army ... For they met with lofty ridges of sand not hard and compact, but so loose that those who stepped on it sank down as into mud ... tortured alike by raging heat and thirst unquenchable”. In October 1893 I travelled from Chahbar, on the coast of Makran, to Geh and Pahra, in the interior; nowhere have I made so trying a journey, and I appreciated the truthfulness of Arrian’s description. So difficult, indeed, are the conditions in Makran that, had the march been undertaken in summer, it is unlikely that a single survivor would have been left to tell the tale.

 

Alexander regained the coast near Pasni, where he obtained fresh water by digging wells on the seashore, which he followed as far as Gwadur. From this port a natural route leads up a river to the interior, and, realizing that to continue along the coast would involve the total destruction of his force, Alexander led the way to the fertile valley in which Poura or Pura was situated. Here his worn-out men were able to rest.

 

Poura, now termed Pahra by the Baluchis and Fahraj by the Persians, lies in the only really fertile valley of Persian Baluchistan. In the neighborhood are ruins of two older forts, and the site is generally believed to be ancient. Arrian states that Poura was reached in sixty days from Ora, and, as the map makes the distance perhaps six hundred miles, this would, in all the circumstances, be a reasonable distance to be covered in the time. Moreover, the army would naturally recruit at the first fertile district it reached, and would certainly not pass by the valley of the Bampur River. Therefore we may confidently assume that the midwinter was spent in this valley of Baluchistan, and here Alexander regained touch with his Persian Satraps. From Poura the river was followed down to where its waters commingle with those of the Halil Rud in a hamun or lake known as the Jaz Morian, which I discovered in 1894 when I followed the footsteps of Alexander in this section of his great journey. A standing camp was formed in the valley of the Halil Rud, probably in the modern district of Rudbar. Higher up this valley, in 1900, a Greek alabaster unguent vase, dating from the period of Alexander, was found by me. It is now one of my greatest treasures, as there is every reason to believe that it was left behind by the Greek army.

 

It was at this standing camp, where an Alexandria was founded which has been identified with modern Gulashkird, that the weather-beaten and ragged Nearchus appeared. Alexander, seeing him in a miserable plight, feared that his fleet was lost, and we can imagine the joy of all when its safety was announced, and with what fervour sacrifices were offered and honours bestowed.

 

In the valley of the Halil Rud the great army was joined by Craterus, with the baggage and elephants, after a march down the Helmand and across the Lut; and the journey was resumed under the most agreeable conditions, with abundant supplies, and no hostile force to be expected. Nearchus returned to the fleet, which he safely conducted to Ahwaz, and Hephaestion marched along the coast, keeping in touch with it. Alexander, with a picked force of light troops, traversed the districts of Sirjan and Baonat to Pasargadae, where we read of his distress upon finding that the tomb of Cyrus had been desecrated. The great army was reunited at Ahwaz, and crossed the Karun by a bridge. Thence it marched to Susa; and here the greatest expedition recorded in history terminated in triumphal rejoicings and in weddings between the noblest Macedonians and Persians.

 

The Voyage to Babylon.—After a while Alexander, ever chafing at inaction, sailed down the Karun to the Persian Gulf, and, skirting the low-lying coast to the mouth of the Tigris, travelled up this great river to Opis situated above modern Baghdad. The voyage took many months to accomplish and was completed in the summer of 324 BC.

 

At Opis he announced that he intended to dismiss many of his veterans with rich rewards to their homes. This brought to a head the feelings of discontent and jealousy which had been constantly inflamed by the knowledge that thousands of Orientals were being trained to take their places in the ranks, and by the supposed change in Alexander from the mighty War Lord of a free people to an Oriental Despot surrounded by thousands of attendants. The war-worn veterans, deeming themselves slighted, collected in a vast throng and cried out to the King to dismiss them all, and then jeeringly advised him to continue the war in company with his father, the god Ammon. This mutinous behavior enraged Alexander, who ordered the ringleaders to instant execution. He then harangued the army in a stirring speech, demonstrating with much force how he had raised his kingdom from penury to opulence; and then, retiring to his palace, he began to organize Persian footguards, to choose Persian companions, and to give high posts to Persians. This was too much for his men, who implored with tears to be forgiven, and a great banquet marked the reconciliation with their commander.

 

Alexander then marched to the uplands of Media, where he found that the famous breed of Nisaean horses had been seriously diminished through neglect. The death of Hephaestion at Ecbatana was a grievous blow to him; and, finding in strenuous action the best alleviation of his grief, he made a winter expedition against the Cossaeans, who occupied the rugged ranges of Luristan. In spite of the cold and the elusiveness of the enemy, this, his last campaign, was as successful as every other war that he waged. In savage mood he offered up the Cossaeans as a sacrifice to the ghost of Hephaestion.

 

The Great Conqueror now marched towards Babylon, arranging on the way for ships to be constructed in Hyrcania for the exploration of the Caspian Sea. There was at that time no certainty that it was an inland sea, and the Volga was quite unknown. Embassies from many lands, including Carthage, Libya, Ethiopia, Italy, and Gaul, came to offer their congratulations, and such widespread homage must have tended to flatter the pride of the Great Soldier. When he approached Babylon, the priests of Bel begged him not to enter the city; but he rejected their advice, as interested, and marched in triumph into the ancient capital of Asia.

 

The Death of Alexander the Great, 323 BC.—Not content with the vast empire he already possessed, Alexander began almost immediately to prepare for an expedition to Arabia by means of reconnaissances and the construc­tion of a powerful fleet to be manned by Phoenicians. He also made a voyage down the Euphrates and began the construction of a dockyard at Babylon. Suddenly, in the midst of his preparations, he was stricken with fever, probably contracted in the marshes of the Euphrates. He continued to give orders and to offer sacrifices as usual; but at last he became speechless, and after greeting his grief-stricken soldiers as they filed past him, Alexander the Great passed away at the early age of thirty-two, in the height of his fame and the splendid plenitude of his power.

 

An Analysis of Hellenism.—It is important to grasp the effect produced on the Persian Empire by the Greek Conquest; and in order to do so it is necessary to consider for a moment the nature of Hellenism, which was imposed on the East. Bevan, who devotes a brilliant and most suggestive chapter to this subject, lays down that the epoch-making achievement of the Greeks was to brings freedom and civilization into unity; and this is profoundly true. As has been pointed out in dealing with Sumer and Akkad, the dwellers in Babylonia, in consequence mainly of the physical conditions, were certainly not free in the Greek sense of the word; indeed each of the old powers not only rested on slavery but held that even its free subjects were bound to obey any and every order without demur. In Hellas, on the other hand, the physical conditions always made for freedom; but the intense love of freedom prevented Hellas from developing into a great power, and to the end of the history of Greece there was no continuous unity of effort.

 

Macedonia was not strictly a Greek state, being composed of a number of mountain tribes who served an absolute monarch; but that monarch was strongly imbued with all that Hellas could teach, and thus Alexander the Great was the torchbearer of Hellenism, and theDiadochi or “Successors” founded dynasties which were Greek in mind and speech. But, as absolute monarchs, both he and they conflicted with the spirit of Hellenism, which implied a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas entirely opposed to absolutism. The life of the Greek citizen was dominated by his sense of duty to the state, of which he was himself a part, and it was this which gave him his love of freedom, his individuality, and his spirit of enterprise, priceless qualities that raised him above the Asiatic. But the lack of other qualities hindered the Greeks from the steady cooperation necessary to make a united Hellenic people. The Macedonian kings were absolute rulers, and consequently would be regarded as tyrants by the Greeks; yet they were Hellenes, who looked to Athens for fame, and who treated their own country­men in a different spirit from that shown towards the subject Asiatics.

 

A Comparison between the Hellenized and the British Empire.—It is interesting to compare the Greeks with ourselves, and their empire with that of Great Britain. It can certainly be maintained that the class from which the administrators of Great Britain have been mostly drawn is trained at the Public Schools both mentally and physically to produce an average type which in many respects must resemble the best Greek ideals more closely than any other since the downfall of Hellas. Indeed in some ways it even surpasses the highest Greek ideals. This training, in a society which is from many points of view a model republic, produces a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas which no other European race can rival; and this explains the fact that the Englishman is so often an able administrator who, thanks to his love of sport and of physical exercise, can live all over the globe and maintain his health and with it his sane outlook, his initiative, and his energy. Just as Alexander the Great built cantonments at strategical points, where he posted garrisons who led their own lives, so the British of today hold India by a mere handful of administrators and soldiers also living their own lives in cantonments distributed at strategical centres, albeit with their task facilitated of late years by railways and the telegraph.

 

To conclude this comparison, would it be far-fetched to compare the Macedonians with the Scotch, who, descended from wild clansmen, have yet played almost as leading a part in empire-building as was played by the tribesmen of Macedonia under their ever-famous King?

 

The Fruits of Hellenism.—Given then the Greek character, it is reasonable to suppose that in ordinary conditions the position of the subject races would be better than under the rule of Persia, just as the Englishman shows incomparably greater consideration to the Indian than the Indians do to their fellow-countrymen. The Greek generals, we know, followed the example of their king in subduing robber tribes and in introducing law and order. But when once the master mind had been removed by death, furious rivalries and wild ambitions were let loose and the Macedonians spoiled their splendid heritage by incessant campaigns. And yet the spirit remained, and, if the era of strife never entirely passed away, it is to be remembered that the armies engaged were small and the area enormous; and thus we can well believe that, as in India during the Mutiny, quiet progress was constantly made in districts which were not affected by the fighting.

 

A matter of no little importance was the dispersal ot the hoards of the Achaemenians. Although in the firsts place the money was given to Macedonian officers and men and was mainly spent on building temples and on public works in Greece, this unlocking of the treasure-house of Asia increased the trade of the known world enormously. As the roads to the East were open for intercourse of every kind, it is reasonable to suppose that the beneficent power of commerce was stimulated and increased to an extent we cannot easily appreciate.

 

One further point remains for notice. Alexander the Great is made to figure in Persian legend as the destroyer of the Zoroastrian religion. This is in fact a complete misrepresentation. Strabo mentions that he prohibited the barbarous custom of exposing persons at the point of death to the sacred dog, and perhaps it was this and similar actions which make the policy of Alexander appear, to be the very reverse of what it actually was. It must also be remembered that it was through priestly and consequently hostile sources that legends concerning his actions were handed down.

 

The Achievements and Character of Alexander the Great.—It has been well said that Alexander the Great represents the culminating point of Greek civilization both in his achievements and in his character. His achievements were to lead the forces of the poor but virile kingdom of Macedonia, threatened as it constantly was by the states of Hellas and the surrounding tribes, over the known world, conquering, organizing, and civilizing wherever he went. He held together his conquests by justice, by founding cities at strategical points which were occupied by Greeks, and above all by his genius, which was not merely dazzling but attractive. And this gigantic work, which was accomplished in eleven years, held good in many cases for centuries; so that after his death, Arrian tells us, from Hellas to India, Semitic and Turanian states were alike ruled by Greek dynasties permeated with the Hellenic spirit. Again, this extraordinary personality worked to break down the barriers between East and West, and had he succeeded in yoking all Hellas to the noble task the results would have been incomparably greater and more lasting than they were; but even Athens could not rise above local jealousies, and Sparta was ever hostile. This temper in Greece only heightens the achievements of Alexander, which, when the age, the short time, and the circumstances are all considered, stand unrivalled among the deeds of men.

 

In studying his character no one who reads with care the pages of Arrian and of Plutarch can fail to notice the judicial frame of mind in which they are written. The errors and defects of Alexander are neither concealed nor extenuated but set forth plainly, and we are impressed with the fact that we have a truthful, detailed, and impartial account of his life. This being so, does the character of any great conqueror appear finer than that of this fearless knight, who inMakran poured away a precious draught of water in the sight of his army? He was courteous to women, ever athirst for knowledge, and surely worthy of the chief seat at any court of chivalry; true to all, generous, humane, and greedy only of renown. Were he impeached before any conceivable tribunal, could we not fancy him exclaiming, like the great Englishman, Clive, “By God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation”. Moderation, self-control, and the cult of the “proper mean” of Aristotle were among his marked characteristics in all his dealings with his fellows.

 

Alexander was not only the greatest of all soldiers; he was a statesman whose plans were constantly successful, and his love of exploration and of knowledge of all kinds was a ruling passion throughout his life. In parting with perhaps the most famous man who ever trod this earth, I quote the words of his great historian, Arrian : “For my own part, I think there was at that time no race of men, no city, nor even a single individual to whom Alexander’s name and fame had not penetrated. For this reason it seems to me that a hero totally unlike any other human" being could not have been born without the agency of the deity”.

 

 

 

Εδώ θα δεις ενα πόνημα Ελλήνων ιστορικών για το έργο του και τον αντίκτυπό τους σήμερα 

 

http://lyk-mouzak.kar.sch.gr/autosch/joomla15/images/PROJECT%20MEGAS%20ALEXANDROS%2017-1-2012.pdf

 

Εδώ θα βρεις,μεταξύ άλλων, λεπτομέρειες για ένα άλλο σπουδαίο επίτευγμα που χωρίς Αυτόν δεν θα υπήρχε την βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας

 

http://www.hellinon.net/NeesSelides/VivliothikiAlexandreias.htm (μην ακούσω πάλι χαζοειρωνείες για το domain του link το περιεχόμενο μετράει και οι άλλες δύο πηγές δεν είναι απο link που θα μπορούσαν να λοιδορηθούν... και επαναλαμβάνω το περιεχόμενο μετράει πήγαινε σε μια βιβλιοθήκη και ψάξε τα ίδια θα γράφει απλά δεν κάθισα να βρώ άλλη πηγή που να τα έχει όλα τοσο καλά συμπυκνωμένα για την Βιβλιοθήκη της Αλεξάνδρειας ) 

 

 

Αυτά, και όχι μόνον, σκιαγραφούν το δαιδαλώδες εκτόπισμα του Αλεξάνδρου του Μέγα βασιλέα των Μακεδνών. 

 

Εδώ ενα ποίημα το Κ.Π Καβάφη (Αλεξανδρινού ποιητή του 19ού αιώνα γενηθής στην Αλεξάνδρεια της Αιγύπτου, δεν θα υπήρχε αν δεν υπήρχε ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος.)

 

Τίτλος "Στα 200 π.Χ" 

 

«Aλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων—»

 

Μπορούμε κάλλιστα να φαντασθούμε

πως θ’ αδιαφόρησαν παντάπασι στην Σπάρτη

για την επιγραφήν αυτή. «Πλην Λακεδαιμονίων»,

μα φυσικά. Δεν ήσαν οι Σπαρτιάται

για να τους οδηγούν και για να τους προστάζουν

σαν πολυτίμους υπηρέτας. Άλλωστε

μια πανελλήνια εκστρατεία χωρίς

Σπαρτιάτη βασιλέα γι’ αρχηγό

δεν θα τους φαίνονταν πολλής περιωπής.

A βεβαιότατα «πλην Λακεδαιμονίων».

 

Είναι κι αυτή μια στάσις. Νοιώθεται.

 

Έτσι, πλην Λακεδαιμονίων στον Γρανικό·

και στην Ισσό μετά· και στην τελειωτική

την μάχη, όπου εσαρώθη ο φοβερός στρατός

που στ’ Άρβηλα συγκέντρωσαν οι Πέρσαι:

που απ’ τ’ Άρβηλα ξεκίνησε για νίκην, κ’ εσαρώθη.

 

Κι απ’ την θαυμάσια πανελλήνιαν εκστρατεία,

την νικηφόρα, την περίλαμπρη,

την περιλάλητη, την δοξασμένη

ως άλλη δεν δοξάσθηκε καμιά,

την απαράμιλλη: βγήκαμ’ εμείς·

ελληνικός καινούριος κόσμος, μέγας.

 

Εμείς· οι Aλεξανδρείς, οι Aντιοχείς,

οι Σελευκείς, κ’ οι πολυάριθμοι

επίλοιποι Έλληνες Aιγύπτου και Συρίας,

κ’ οι εν Μηδία, κ’ οι εν Περσίδι, κι όσοι άλλοι.

Με τες εκτεταμένες επικράτειες,

με την ποικίλη δράσι των στοχαστικών προσαρμογών.

Και την Κοινήν Ελληνική Λαλιά

ώς μέσα στην Βακτριανή την πήγαμεν, ώς τους Ινδούς.

 

Για Λακεδαιμονίους να μιλούμε τώρα! 

  (Από τα Ποιήματα 1897-1933, Ίκαρος 1984) 

 

 

Βέβαια όλα αυτά σήμερα ξεχασμένα {(τυχαία; ) το κράτος-τυχαία; - παρατάει όλες τις πρεσβείες σε αυτές τις περιοχές στην μοίρα τους - ποιος βασικά απο εσάς ξέρει ότι υπάρχουν ακόμη έλληνες και ελληνικά σχολεία εκει και πολλά ελληνικά έργα -περισσότερα και αυτά που βρίσκονται στην Ελλάδα- σε αυτές τις περιοχές; ή στην νότια Ιταλία; στην βόρειο ήπειρο;} και καταπλακωμένα απο τόνους λάσπη της αγέλης των "πολιτών του κόσμου" νεοελλήνων προχό.. που με την μοναδική δικαιολογία του να μην χαρακτηριστούν λιακοπουλικοί δεν διστάζουν να μπήξουν το μαχαίρι ακόμη πιο βαθιά στην πολιτιστική μας κληρονομιά και να αφανίσουν κάθε ελπίδα να ζούμε ελληνικά... καλύτερα ειναι να αλλωτριωθούμε στα ξένα συστήματα μας φτάνει το Iphone και η νυχτερινή έξοδος μας ποιός την χέζει την πατρίδα.. δεν υπάρχουν σύνορά και κληρονομιά

 

Η πρώτη "σύγχρονη" αυτοκρατορία της περιοχής,που ήταν οργανωμένη πάνω στους υπηκόους της ήταν η Αχαιμενιδών,η ίδια η οποία έδωσε τον μπούσουλα στον Άλεξ να προσπαθήσει να χτίσει την δική του(κάτι στο οποίο απέτυχε).Δεν ήταν ο Άλεξ εφευρέτης του διεθνούς εμπορίου(πως θα μπορούσε άλλωστε),ούτε έκανε κάτι το οποίο ο Φοίνικες(και μετέπειτα οι Έλληνες) δεν είχαν πράξει πριν(την εμπορική σύνδεση Ανατολής-Δύσης).

 

Το αγγλικό κείμενο είναι μια όμορφη προώθηση/"αγγελοποίηση" της Βρετανικής αυτοκρατορίας, και των πεπραγμένων αυτής,προσπαθώντας να την συνδέσει την Μακεδονική.

Γραμμένο μια εποχή που η Βρετανία είχε την Ινδία(και τις λοιπές υπερπόντιες κτήσεις) και την "εκπολίτιζε".Είναι ύμνος στο πόσο καλοί είναι οι Δυτικοί κατακτητές και στο πόσο τυχεροί είναι οι κατακτημένοι,από την αρχαιότητα έως σήμερα.Ένα κείμενο που παραθέτει τα καλά μιας,για αυτούς, Πεφωτισμένης αυτοκρατορίας.

Δεν σε τιμά τέτοιο κείμενο και προσβάλει την νοημοσύνη μας.

 

Το να είσαι και να θεωρείς τον εαυτό σου Έλληνα δεν έχει σχέση με το πως βλέπεις τις μορφές που στιγμάτισαν την Ελληνική ιστορία.Δεν θίγουμε την ελληνικότητα κανενός λέγοντας ότι ο Άλεξ, και κάθε κατακτητής στην ανθρώπινη ιστορία,δεν ήταν και ο πρώτος αλτρουιστής και δεν πήγε να καταστρέψει την Αχαιμενιδική αυτοκρατορία για την ψυχή της μάνας του.Ούτε τα καλά που έκανε(όπως ίδρυση πόλεων)καταργούν τους σκοπούς των πεπραγμένων του(χτίσιμο αυτοκρατορίας με κάθε κόστος).

Ο Αλέξ δεν μας δείχνει τον δρόμο για να ζούμε Ελληνικά,αντίθετα έφερε την ανατολική Δεσποτεία στον ελεύθερο Ελληνικό κόσμο,το ίδιο το κείμενο σου το γράφει.

Υπάρχουν πολλές λαμπρές μορφές στο Ελληνικό παρελθόν οι οποίες μόνο καλό έχουν κάνει στην ανθρωπότητα(όπως ο Ιπποκράτης)που κανένας ΕΛ δεν πολύ ασχολείται μαζί τους,γιατί τέτοιο κόλλημα με έναν στρατηλάτη;

 

Mια άλλη σημείωση,από όσο ξέρω τα πρώτα που γράφει ο Πλούταρχος εδώ είναι στην πλειοψηφία τους λάθος(ή και προπαγάνδα). Ιδίως οι Σκύθες είχαν εξαιρετικής ποιότητας και πολυτέλειας ταφικούς λόφους που ήταν συνέχεια μιας παράδοσης που ήδη στην αρχαιότητα μετρούσε χιλιάδες χρόνια(κάτι που αναλύεται εξαιρετικά στο "The horse,the wheel and language").

[man of steel]

Το ονειρο και το οραμα της ''υδρογειου ενωσις'' το ειχε και ο Χιτλερ...

 

Το γεγονος οτι ο Αλεξανδρος περασε καποιες ελληνικες γνωσεις και πολιτιστικη κουλτουρα ειτε δια βιας ειτε ειρηνικα αν εβρισκε αποδεκτες δεν αναιρουν το γεγονος οτι ηταν σφαγεας και κατακτητης...

 

Ο πραγματικος σκοπος της εκστρατειας βεβαια δεν ηταν να διαδωσει πολιτισμο. Ο σκοπος ηταν η εξασφαλιση του μακεδονικου κρατους ως ενα σημειο, η εκδικηση κατα των Περσων και φυσικα τα αμυθητα πλουτη, η κυριρχια και η μεγαλομανια...

 

Τωρα αν εσυ πιστευεις οτι εκανε εκπολιτιστικο εργο με βια, αιμα και σκοτωμους ειναι ενα θεμα... Γιατι εγω αλλιως ξερω πως παραγεται και διαδιδεται ο πολιτισμος. Σιγουρα οχι υποδουλωνοντας λαους και σφαζοντας οσους δεν θελουν να ''εκπολιτιστουν''

Τουλαχιστον αυτος κατι προσπαθει να πει και δεν κανει 40 χρονων ανθρωπος σαν παιδακι δημοτικου...

Εσυ βρες κανεναν να παιξεις καμια δηλωτη ή τραβα να γραψεις καμια μ@λ@κιουλα για τον ολυμπιακο και τον φαταουλα. Γιατι εδω δεν...

Ποιος γράφει μαλακιούλες εδώ μέσα το ξέρουμε.Αν αρχίσω να απαριθμώ τα άτομα που σε έχουν κράξει κατά καιρούς εδώ μέσα θα μου πάρει ώρες.Οπως είπα είσαι γνωστό τρολ πνεύμα αντιλογίας και τύπος που τον φτύνουν και αυτός νομίζει ότι βρέχει.Δηλαδή κοινώς είσαι σπίρτο.NOT

[MiDi_MiLiZ]

Μην τσακωνεστε, ο ΠΑΟ στο μπασκετ την ειχε πιο μεγαλη την αυτοκρατορια

[CROM271]

Ποιος γράφει μαλακιούλες εδώ μέσα το ξέρουμε.Αν αρχίσω να απαριθμώ τα άτομα που σε έχουν κράξει κατά καιρούς εδώ μέσα θα μου πάρει ώρες.Οπως είπα είσαι γνωστό τρολ πνεύμα αντιλογίας και τύπος που τον φτύνουν και αυτός νομίζει ότι βρέχει.Δηλαδή κοινώς είσαι σπίρτο.NOT

Ε σε ενα forum υπαρχουν και τελειωμενοι σαν και του λογου σου τι να κανουμε...

 

Ρε αντε για δηλωτη και κανενα τσιπουρο στο καφενειο να μιλησεις για τον Ολυμπιακο. Ως εκει εισαι...

[The_Colonel]

Mια άλλη σημείωση,από όσο ξέρω τα πρώτα που γράφει ο Πλούταρχος εδώ είναι στην πλειοψηφία τους λάθος(ή και προπαγάνδα). Ιδίως οι Σκύθες είχαν εξαιρετικής ποιότητας και πολυτέλειας ταφικούς λόφους που ήταν συνέχεια μιας παράδοσης που ήδη στην αρχαιότητα μετρούσε χιλιάδες χρόνια(κάτι που αναλύεται εξαιρετικά στο "The horse,the wheel and language").

Σοβαρά τώρα ο David Anthony (που προσωπικά δεν τον ξέρω και γενικά δεν έχει κάποιο ιδιαίτερο όνομα βασικά ότι μπορούσα να βρώ σχετιζόταν με προσωπικές του δηλώσεις για τον εαυτό του και αποτί βλέπω δεν έχει κανένα άλλο έργο πέρα απο αυτό το βιβλιαράκι που αναφέρεις ) ειναι ενας 40ρης καθηγητής σε ενα κολέγιο στην αμερική με ειδικότητα στους Αμερικανούς ιθαγενής... 

 

Και συγκρίνεις αυτό το άτομο με τον Πλούταρχο, τον Ηρόδοτο, τον Tadeusz Sulimirski,Boris Piotrovsky και λοιπούς; (μέχρι και η αγία γραφή τους βάφει σαν τον χειρότερο απο τους απολίτιστους λαούς)

 

Να υποθέσω ότι στο βιβλίο αυτό μιλάει μόνο για τα ταφικά έθιμα των σκυθών όσο αφορά τους βασιλείς τους και όσο αφορά την πρόσφατη ιστορία τους ε; 

 

Καταρχήν ήταν ενα συνονθύλευμα απο φύλα, νομάδες που μετατράπηκαν κάπου στον 8-7πχ σε πολεμικό λαό (πάλι νομάδες όμως δεν είχαν κανένα πολιτιστικό στοιχείο τρώγανε στο πόδι κυριολεκτικά: βάζανε την ωμή τροφή τους ανάμεσα στα χαμνά τους όταν ιππεύανε για να διατηρείται ζεστή )

Ανοίξανε λίγο τα μάτια τους όταν κατακτήσανε το βασίλειο του Μίδα που ήταν μέσα στην χλιδή και πήραν μια γέυση απο πολιτισμό ή τουλάχιστον τον υλισμό που επιφέρει. 

 

 

Ο Αλέξ δεν μας δείχνει τον δρόμο για να ζούμε Ελληνικά,αντίθετα έφερε την ανατολική Δεσποτεία στον ελεύθερο Ελληνικό κόσμο,το ίδιο το κείμενο σου το γράφει.

 

 

Πού το γράφει αυτό; (!!!!!!)  και τέλος διάβασες μόνο αυτό το κείμενο τα άλλα δεν τα διάβασες; Άσε που ειναι αδύνατον να καταγράψει κανείς τα πάντα μέσα σε ενα ποστ...  Αλλά ειναι τελείως κουφό να βλέπω να αμφισβητείς αυτονόητα πράματα. 

 

και πως το καταφέρνει αυτό;

 

Όταν διορίζει Έλληνες στρατηγούς στην διοίκηση των Περσών (μαζί με Πέρσες βέβαια) τους παντρεύει με περσίδες παντρεύει όλο τον στρατό του με περσίδες και φέρνει Έλληνες δασκάλους για να επιμορφώσουν με την ελληνική παιδεία δεκάδες χιλιάδες Πέρσες;

 

Το έκανε αυτό με την ύδρηση πάνω απο 70 ελληνικών πόλεων σε στρατηγικά σημεία; 

 

Τα ευαγγέλια η παλαιά διαθήκη και οι επιστολές των αποστόλων γιατι γράφονται στα ελληνικά και όχι σε αραμαικά κτλ μήπως επειδή λέω εγώ τώρα υπήρξε η μακεδονική αυτοκρατορία που μετέδωσε τον ελληνισμό σε αυτές τις περιοχές;

 

Αστεία πράματα θα λέμε τώρα;

 

 

Το αγγλικό κείμενο είναι μια όμορφη προώθηση/"αγγελοποίηση" της Βρετανικής αυτοκρατορίας, και των πεπραγμένων αυτής,προσπαθώντας να την συνδέσει την Μακεδονική.

 

Καμία σχέση απολύτως ειναι ενα κείμενο απο ένα ευρύτερο έργο και στο απόκομμα κάνει απλά μια νύξη για τις ομοιότητες της αγγλικής αυτοκρατορίας με αυτή του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου που φυσικά και υπάρχουν μια και δεν γίνεται να υπάρξει επιτυχημένη αυτοκρατορία που να μην αντιγράφει (Αναγκαστικά) αυτή του Αλεξάνδρου επειδή πολύ απλά αποτελεί πρότυπο οργάνωσης και διοίκησης... 

 

 

Η πρώτη "σύγχρονη" αυτοκρατορία της περιοχής,που ήταν οργανωμένη πάνω στους υπηκόους της ήταν η Αχαιμενιδών,η ίδια η οποία έδωσε τον μπούσουλα στον Άλεξ να προσπαθήσει να χτίσει την δική του(κάτι στο οποίο απέτυχε).Δεν ήταν ο Άλεξ εφευρέτης του διεθνούς εμπορίου(πως θα μπορούσε άλλωστε),ούτε έκανε κάτι το οποίο ο Φοίνικες(και μετέπειτα οι Έλληνες) δεν είχαν πράξει πριν(την εμπορική σύνδεση Ανατολής-Δύσης).

 

Τι "Άλεξ" ρε κακομοίρη το λες και το ξαναλές όταν μιλάς για άτομα τέτοιας υπόστασης (και δεί όταν αυτά τα άτομα ήταν προπάτορες σου) με τέτοιο εξευτελιστικό τρόπο γίνεσαι τουλάχιστον γελοίος. Γιατί ακόμη και δίκαιο να έχεις εσύ και οι όμοιοι σου για όλες αυτές τις προχό σαχλαμάρες ακόμη και έτσι δεν είσαι ούτε τρίχα απο τα να μην πω του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. 

 

 

Απέτυχε στο υποτιθέμενο μυαλό σου γιατι μέχρι εκεί πάει.... Αν θεωρείται η αυτοκρατορία του αποτυχία τότε τι θεωρείται επιτυχημένο; πλάκας μας κάνεις τώρα; 

 

Ποιες τέχνες αναδείχθηκαν υπο την αυτοκρατορία των Αχαιμενιδών; ποιες τεχνολογίες; ποιοί νόμοι; ποιά ήθη; ποιες επιστήμες; ποιες φιλοσοφίες;  και πως αυτές συγκρίνοντε με εκείνες που αναδείχθηκαν στην αυτοκρατορία του Αλεξάνδρου του Μέγα; Ποιος ειναι αρκετά βλάκας βλάκας να το αμφισβητήσει αυτό; γιατι έγκριτα μυαλά παγκοσμίως δεν το κάνουν.

 

 

 

Υπάρχουν πολλές λαμπρές μορφές στο Ελληνικό παρελθόν οι οποίες μόνο καλό έχουν κάνει στην ανθρωπότητα(όπως ο Ιπποκράτης)που κανένας ΕΛ δεν πολύ ασχολείται μαζί τους,γιατί τέτοιο κόλλημα με έναν στρατηλάτη;

 

 

 

Δεν ξέρω τι κάνουν οι ΕΛ και οι ΜΕΛ αυτό που ξέρω ειναι ότι το post που αναφέρεσαι ήταν απάντηση στο "ποιό το έργο του Μέγα Αλεξάνδρου;"  εννοείται ότι δεν ήταν η μοναδική λαμπρή προσωπικότητα παγκοσμίως ή για τα ελληνικά δεδομένα αλλά μιλάμε τώρα για τον συγκεκριμένο μεγάλο Έλληνα.. βέβαια που να το καταλάβεις αυτό αφού συνέχεια βλέπεις το δέντρο και αδυνατείς να δείς το δάσος..

 

Βλέπεις τις στρατιωτικές νίκες και δεν βλέπεις τον αντίκτυπό τους, Βλέπεις τις ομοιότητες με προηγούμενα συστήματα και δεν βλέπεις τις διαφορές και πως αυτές επηρεάζουν καθοριστικά την πραγματικότητα... βλέπεις να γράφω για τον Μέγα Αλέξανδρο και επειδή το κάνω αυτό νομίζεις πως θεωρώ τους άλλους ασήμαντους...

 

τι να λέμε τώρα... 

 

[man of steel]

Ε σε ενα forum υπαρχουν και τελειωμενοι σαν και του λογου σου τι να κανουμε...

 

Ρε αντε για δηλωτη και κανενα τσιπουρο στο καφενειο να μιλησεις για τον Ολυμπιακο. Ως εκει εισαι...

Ε ναι σε ένα forum υπάρχουν και άτομα που τους κράζουν όλοι και αυτοί νομίζουν ότι είναι σπουδαίοι.Άτομα προσωπολάτρες επειδή οι ίδιοι κουβαλούν μυαλό λάχανου και έχουν άπειρα κόμπλεξ.Πραγματικά τουλάχιστον εδώ στο insomnia δύο topic δεχθήκανε τόσο χλευασμό.Αυτό του υγρού πυρ και το δικό σου.Οπότε καταλαβαίνουμε πολλά για σένα από τα θέματα στα οποία κατά καιρούς συμμετέχεις..Βρες ένα δικό μου post που να έχει δεχθεί τόσο χλέυη από όλους όπως αυτά που ποστάρεις εσύ.Άσε μην κάνεις τον κόπο δεν υπάρχουν..Άντε να προσκυνήσεις την αφίσα του Μουρίνιο αγοράκι και μη μου λες εμένα για δηλωτές.Α και όταν ζούσα εγώ σε πόλη εσύ ήσουνα ακόμα ούτε καν ιδέα. Κάνε μας την χάρη και άντε να παίξεις με τα άλλα παιδάκια.....Γιατί από ιστορία και από γνώσεις μέχρι εκεί φτάνεις.Άτομο που ισχυρίζεται ότι Αλέξανδρος ίσον Χίτλερ  χρήζει εξέταση από γιατρό και επιστροφή στο δημοτικό ξανά μπας και μάθει ιστορία.Και πολύ ασχολήθηκα μαζί σου.

[CROM271]

Ρε τραβα για δηλωτη σου λεω που σε θεμα για τον Μ.Α. εσυ μας λες για τον Μουρινιο! Εκει δηλωτη τσιπουρο και συζητηση με κανεναν ιδιου επιπεδου για τον τρυλο! Ως εκει κοβει τι να κανουμε...

 

Και εννοειται πολυ ασχοληθηκες μαζι μου. Καλυτερα να περιοριζεσαι στις τσιπουροσυζητησεις στο καφενειο που σου αρμοζουν...

[The_Colonel]

[man of steel]

Ρε τραβα για δηλωτη σου λεω που σε θεμα για τον Μ.Α. εσυ μας λες για τον Μουρινιο! Εκει δηλωτη τσιπουρο και συζητηση με κανεναν ιδιου επιπεδου για τον τρυλο! Ως εκει κοβει τι να κανουμε...

 

Και εννοειται πολυ ασχοληθηκες μαζι μου. Καλυτερα να περιοριζεσαι στις τσιπουροσυζητησεις στο καφενειο που σου αρμοζουν...

Και πολύ ασχολήθηκα μαζί σου.Μέχρι να εμπεδωθεί.....Αλλά δεν έχω ελπίδες.

[LongTom]

 

Σοβαρά τώρα ο David Anthony (που προσωπικά δεν τον ξέρω και γενικά δεν έχει κάποιο ιδιαίτερο όνομα βασικά ότι μπορούσα να βρώ σχετιζόταν με προσωπικές του δηλώσεις για τον εαυτό του και αποτί βλέπω δεν έχει κανένα άλλο έργο πέρα απο αυτό το βιβλιαράκι που αναφέρεις ) ειναι ενας 40ρης καθηγητής σε ενα κολέγιο στην αμερική με ειδικότητα στους Αμερικανούς ιθαγενής... 

 

Και συγκρίνεις αυτό το άτομο με τον Πλούταρχο, τον Ηρόδοτο, τον Tadeusz Sulimirski,Boris Piotrovsky και λοιπούς; (μέχρι και η αγία γραφή τους βάφει σαν τον χειρότερο απο τους απολίτιστους λαούς)

 

Να υποθέσω ότι στο βιβλίο αυτό μιλάει μόνο για τα ταφικά έθιμα των σκυθών όσο αφορά τους βασιλείς τους και όσο αφορά την πρόσφατη ιστορία τους ε; 

 

Καταρχήν ήταν ενα συνονθύλευμα απο φύλα, νομάδες που μετατράπηκαν κάπου στον 8-7πχ σε πολεμικό λαό (πάλι νομάδες όμως δεν είχαν κανένα πολιτιστικό στοιχείο τρώγανε στο πόδι κυριολεκτικά: βάζανε την ωμή τροφή τους ανάμεσα στα χαμνά τους όταν ιππεύανε για να διατηρείται ζεστή )

Ανοίξανε λίγο τα μάτια τους όταν κατακτήσανε το βασίλειο του Μίδα που ήταν μέσα στην χλιδή και πήραν μια γέυση απο πολιτισμό ή τουλάχιστον τον υλισμό που επιφέρει. 

 

 

 

Πού το γράφει αυτό; (!!!!!!)  και τέλος διάβασες μόνο αυτό το κείμενο τα άλλα δεν τα διάβασες; Άσε που ειναι αδύνατον να καταγράψει κανείς τα πάντα μέσα σε ενα ποστ...  Αλλά ειναι τελείως κουφό να βλέπω να αμφισβητείς αυτονόητα πράματα. 

 

και πως το καταφέρνει αυτό;

 

Όταν διορίζει Έλληνες στρατηγούς στην διοίκηση των Περσών (μαζί με Πέρσες βέβαια) τους παντρεύει με περσίδες παντρεύει όλο τον στρατό του με περσίδες και φέρνει Έλληνες δασκάλους για να επιμορφώσουν με την ελληνική παιδεία δεκάδες χιλιάδες Πέρσες;

 

Το έκανε αυτό με την ύδρηση πάνω απο 70 ελληνικών πόλεων σε στρατηγικά σημεία; 

 

Τα ευαγγέλια η παλαιά διαθήκη και οι επιστολές των αποστόλων γιατι γράφονται στα ελληνικά και όχι σε αραμαικά κτλ μήπως επειδή λέω εγώ τώρα υπήρξε η μακεδονική αυτοκρατορία που μετέδωσε τον ελληνισμό σε αυτές τις περιοχές;

 

Αστεία πράματα θα λέμε τώρα;

 

 

Καμία σχέση απολύτως ειναι ενα κείμενο απο ένα ευρύτερο έργο και στο απόκομμα κάνει απλά μια νύξη για τις ομοιότητες της αγγλικής αυτοκρατορίας με αυτή του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου που φυσικά και υπάρχουν μια και δεν γίνεται να υπάρξει επιτυχημένη αυτοκρατορία που να μην αντιγράφει (Αναγκαστικά) αυτή του Αλεξάνδρου επειδή πολύ απλά αποτελεί πρότυπο οργάνωσης και διοίκησης... 

 

 

Τι "Άλεξ" ρε κακομοίρη το λες και το ξαναλές όταν μιλάς για άτομα τέτοιας υπόστασης (και δεί όταν αυτά τα άτομα ήταν προπάτορες σου) με τέτοιο εξευτελιστικό τρόπο γίνεσαι τουλάχιστον γελοίος. Γιατί ακόμη και δίκαιο να έχεις εσύ και οι όμοιοι σου για όλες αυτές τις προχό σαχλαμάρες ακόμη και έτσι δεν είσαι ούτε τρίχα απο τα να μην πω του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου. 

 

 

Απέτυχε στο υποτιθέμενο μυαλό σου γιατι μέχρι εκεί πάει.... Αν θεωρείται η αυτοκρατορία του αποτυχία τότε τι θεωρείται επιτυχημένο; πλάκας μας κάνεις τώρα; 

 

Ποιες τέχνες αναδείχθηκαν υπο την αυτοκρατορία των Αχαιμενιδών; ποιες τεχνολογίες; ποιοί νόμοι; ποιά ήθη; ποιες επιστήμες; ποιες φιλοσοφίες;  και πως αυτές συγκρίνοντε με εκείνες που αναδείχθηκαν στην αυτοκρατορία του Αλεξάνδρου του Μέγα; Ποιος ειναι αρκετά βλάκας βλάκας να το αμφισβητήσει αυτό; γιατι έγκριτα μυαλά παγκοσμίως δεν το κάνουν.

 

 

 

Δεν ξέρω τι κάνουν οι ΕΛ και οι ΜΕΛ αυτό που ξέρω ειναι ότι το post που αναφέρεσαι ήταν απάντηση στο "ποιό το έργο του Μέγα Αλεξάνδρου;"  εννοείται ότι δεν ήταν η μοναδική λαμπρή προσωπικότητα παγκοσμίως ή για τα ελληνικά δεδομένα αλλά μιλάμε τώρα για τον συγκεκριμένο μεγάλο Έλληνα.. βέβαια που να το καταλάβεις αυτό αφού συνέχεια βλέπεις το δέντρο και αδυνατείς να δείς το δάσος..

 

Βλέπεις τις στρατιωτικές νίκες και δεν βλέπεις τον αντίκτυπό τους, Βλέπεις τις ομοιότητες με προηγούμενα συστήματα και δεν βλέπεις τις διαφορές και πως αυτές επηρεάζουν καθοριστικά την πραγματικότητα... βλέπεις να γράφω για τον Μέγα Αλέξανδρο και επειδή το κάνω αυτό νομίζεις πως θεωρώ τους άλλους ασήμαντους...

 

τι να λέμε τώρα... 

 

 

Μερικά πράγματα για να τελειώνουμε με αυτόν τον ωκεανό γελοιότητας που σε δέρνει.

 

-Το βιβλίο αναφέρεται,εκτός των δεκάδων άλλων, στο θέμα των ταφών και στο ότι όλοι οι λαοί της στέπας είχαν παρόμοια ταφικά έθιμα(στην περίοδο που αναφέρεται).Αυτό έγραψα. Ξεκάθαρα αναφέρει ότι βασίζεται σε αρχαιολογική έρευνα του ιδίου και συναδέλφων του σε Ρωσία,Ουκρανία και Ευρώπη,όχι ότι το διάβασες,αλλά λέμε τώρα.

Έχει επίσης κερδίσει το βραβείο καλύτερου βιβλίου από την Αμερικάνικη Αρχαιολογική Ένωση.Αυτά για τον άσχετο καημένο που τόλμησε και έκανε σοβαρή αρχαιολογική έρευνα για να καταρρίψει την αρχαία μυθολογία και ιστορίες δια αγρίους.

 

-Εάν διάβαζες το άνω βιβλίο,ή οποιαδήποτε βιβλίο,θα έβλεπες ότι μέχρι την εισβολή των πρώτων Αλταϊκών-Ουνικών φύλλων όλες οι νομαδικές φυλές στην περιοχή ήταν κοινής καταγωγής και κοινού πολιτισμικού υποβάθρου.Επίσης όπως όλοι οι λαοί που υπόκεινται σε περιβαντολλογικές/κοινωνικές πιέσεις κάνουν πράγματα που σε κάποιους φαίνονται βάρβαρα.

 

 

 

 

 But, as absolute monarchs, both he and they conflicted with the spirit of Hellenism, which implied a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas entirely opposed to absolutism.[...]The Macedonian kings were absolute rulers, and consequently would be regarded as tyrants by the Greeks

-Εδώ τι γράφει; Μήπως να χρησιμοποιήσεις το google translator εάν δεν το έχεις με τα εγγλέζικα;

 

-Καταλαβαίνεις τι σημαίνει Δεσποτεία και κατάργηση του ελεύθερου Ελληνικού πνεύματος ή απλά απαντάς ότι προλάβεις;

Οι τύποι που διόρισε ήταν αυτοί που προσκύνησαν,απλό και κατανοητό.

Αυτοί που ήθελαν την ανεξαρτησία τους πολύ απλά καταστράφηκαν ήδη από την εποχή του πατέρα του...

 

 

 

 

any respects must resemble the best Greek ideals more closely than any other since the downfall of Hellas. Indeed in some ways it even surpasses the highest Greek ideals. This training, in a society which is from many points of view a model republic, produces a certain type of character and a certain cast of ideas which no other European race can rival; and this explains the fact that the Englishman is so often an able administrator who, thanks to his love of sport and of physical exercise, can live all over the globe and maintain his health and with it his sane outlook, his initiative, and his energy. Just as Alexander the Great built cantonments at strategical points, where he posted garrisons who led their own lives, so the British of today hold India by a mere handful of administrators and soldiers also living their own lives in cantonments distributed at strategical centres, albeit with their task facilitated of late years by railways and the telegraph.

 

-Βεβαίως,τελείως διακριτικά ονομάζει τους Βρετανούς ως το απαύγασμα του Ευρωπαϊκού πολιτισμού,ως όχι μόνο μοναδικούς φορείς,αλλά και του μόνους που πήγαν την Ελληνική Ιδέα στο επόμενο βήμα. Όπως επίσης ως την Χρυσή τομή της σωματικής τελειότητας....

 

Ακόμη είναι τελείως λογικό ότι όλοι,μα όλοι,αντέγραψαν την 10χρονη(ουσιαστικά λιγότερο κράτησε)αυτοκρατορία του Άλεξ που ,ω έκπληξη βασίστηκε στους θεσμούς των Αχαιμενιδών για να χτιστεί,μάλιστα...

 

-Εσύ δηλαδή είσαι τρίχα από τα @@ του και μιλάς για αυτόν;

Ή πρέπει να είσαι ο Νεύτων και ο Αννίβας για να αναφερθείς σε μια ιστορική προσωπικότητα και το έργο αυτής;

 

-Κάθε μεγάλη προσωπικότητα έχει αντίκτυπο στην εποχή του,κάποιοι περισσότερο κάποιοι λιγότερο.Το να προσπαθείς όμως να αγιοποιήσεις και να αποδώσεις κατορθώματα άλλων σε έναν είναι τουλάχιστον αστείο.