Is this gay the most overrated ancient westerner?
>Throws tantrums all the time like the feminine sissy he was
>Killed baby brother
>Killed friends and allies just cuz so randumb
>Turbomanlet maximus
>Persians and Pakis towered over him
>Blatant bottom
>Drunkard
>Shit administrator
>Shit philosopher
>Shit at anything that wasnt war related
>Typically outnumbered Achaemenids, sometimes matched in numbers
>Fought six battles
>Gayreek Empire significantly smaller than Achaemenid Empire
>Barbarian fags, beat Achaemenids for same reason Arabs did (prior wars and weak king)
>Died of AIDs with gay lover
>Empire disintegrates
>Son assassinated by other gayreeks
>Fast forward and no gayreek settlement left
One could call him a good general, but compared to what he was up against(decentralized leadership, war weary, and naive emperor), it wasn't hard to win. He would've gotten rekt against Balkans especially when the Germanics and Celts invade(got rekt by Brennus). He would've gotten rekt against India(troops even mutinied at thought) and China.
>>1282130
t. christian pleb
>>1282130
This is one of the worst /his/ posts I've ever seen. Killnyourself, christard
>>1282130
Everything you've said is true, but it's rather his legacy which influenced a lot of European generals to look up to him, which really set his title of 'Great' in stone. A barbarian from a shitty wasteland in Europe taking over the largest empire of the ancient world is pretty impressive, and sure, he wasn't great at anything besides war, but he didn't get to prove himself as a ruler, as his empire disintegrated after his death.
He wasn't a Westerner.
>>1282265
Asia minor-er
>>1282228
>A barbarian from a shitty wasteland in Europe taking over the largest empire of the ancient world
It is not impressive, it is tragic for a great empire to be destroyed by filthy barbarians. Do you also think the death of the Roman Empire, Song China, Sassanids, Mughals, and many more great empires were also good?
>wasn't great at anything besides war
>he didn't get to prove himself
The fact that his empire disintegrated at death means he wasn't a good ruler. Didn't happen to Cyrus the Great, Genghis Khan, Augustus Caesar, Ashoka, Ardashir, or Charlemagne and these people were or close to dynasty starters. He was a poor ruler, with no understanding of economics, administration, morality, philosophy, or kingsmanship, he was just a fleeting barbarian. There is good reason one as evil as him as vilified in all Abrahamic texts and more.
I also think it's interesting that everyone suck's Alexander's dick for his rapid expansion through Persia but are eager to make excuses for those the Muslims rolled over in their own rapid expansion through Persia.
>>1282307
This.
>>1282281
>macadonia
>asia minor
>>1282130
t. Alaric
>>1282130
>Alexander
>Westerner
>Applying mordern concepts to history
Fuck off
