yeah especially after he massacred the population of Thebes

lmao @ the Persian army being 3 times as large ... modern estimates reveal that logistically Darius couldn't field that many men in even an open field pitched battle, it simply wasn't possible to mobilize that much of a force to a single area ... here is a battle where the enemy is well over 3 times as large

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Firaz

and you're still comparing bronze equipment to WOOD (Persians were still using wood although they did use iron swords) ... the Persians hardly wore any armor at all ... and Darius (who was running more than fighting) tried to use chariots against the phalanx, which proved to fail ... they were fighting a modernized greek army with new tactics developed by alexanders father ... you're simply lying if you don't believe they didn't have superior infantry and superior overall cavalry ... Persians really only had archers over them and a couple of hundred of chariots ...

and the death story of Darius is just a myth, unless he came back from the dead and started writing letters to Porus ... like I said, he used his fathers military to defeat a declining Persian empire ... he was just a semi-barbarian warlord who destroyed a declining persian empire ....

Talwar Khan wrote:yeah especially after he massacred the population of Thebes

lmao @ the Persian army being 3 times as large ... modern estimates reveal that logistically Darius couldn't field that many men in even an open field pitched battle, it simply wasn't possible to mobilize that much of a force to a single area ... here is a battle where the enemy is well over 3 times as large

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Firaz

and you're still comparing bronze equipment to WOOD (Persians were still using wood although they did use iron swords) ... the Persians hardly wore any armor at all ... and Darius (who was running more than fighting) tried to use chariots against the phalanx, which proved to fail ... they were fighting a modernized greek army with new tactics developed by alexanders father ... you're simply lying if you don't believe they didn't have superior infantry and superior overall cavalry ... Persians really only had archers over them and a couple of hundred of chariots ...

and the death story of Darius is just a myth, unless he came back from the dead and started writing letters to Porus ... like I said, he used his fathers military to defeat a declining Persian empire ... he was just a semi-barbarian warlord who destroyed a declining persian empire ....

are are quite dull when it comes to military standards you know. the Greek phalanx were lightly armored and easily flanked, The chariots could have quickly mowed down thousands of infantry had they the opportunity. Who cares if the Persians used wood as well, The Romans who quite readily owned the phalanx used a wooden shield. Hell the Zulu tribe used hide shields and they kicked some serious British but with them. And as for your insulting comment about him being barbaric There is no evidence to this, If anything the Caliphate's were backward and were even defeated by true barbarians. Hell the Battle of Firaz was only the Muslim forces killing an already dead Persia with superior train advantage.

Thats the point. Darius charged the phalanx head on with chariots ... this is the enemy that he was facing, someone with no command skills at all, so its not that great of a feat to beat him. Especially when you're the son of the man who created the most up to date modern military at the time and the student of perhaps the greatest polymath ever in Aristotle.

And the Romans had IRON weapons, armor and shields ... the only people who were producing steel equipment at the time were S. Asians ... The Persian strategy at the time was to overwhelm an enemy with superior numbers ... they really didn't have great weapons or armor ... the only conceivable advantage they had were their bows which were ineffective against Alexander's defenses ...

And the Battle of Firaz saw a joint effort between the Romans, Persians and allied Arab tribes (most Christian) against the Muslims ... the odds were enormous against the Muslims, they were HEAVILY outnumbered and outgunned but due to superior command, tactics and strategy of their general, they won.

And I only called him a semi-barbarian because he dissolved the most sophisticated empire at the time .. sort of like the Western Roman empire being overrun by the "barbarians." The Khalifats became the leaders of learning and knowledge at the time and it came to an end in WW1 at the hands of the most advanced nations at the time not"barbarians."

Preid, if you have any idea about the ancient Egyptians, you know that this behavior lines up with if their motives had truly been what I said. This is because the Egyptians believed only that their leaders and those amongst them were Gods, not foreigners. And at the same time, they always had their gods represented. This reincarnation crap is just to make him believe that they worshiped him.

Dark Flame99966 wrote:Preid, if you have any idea about the ancient Egyptians, you know that this behavior lines up with if their motives had truly been what I said. This is because the Egyptians believed only that their leaders and those amongst them were Gods, not foreigners. And at the same time, they always had their gods represented. This reincarnation crap is just to make him believe that they worshiped him.

or perhaps they did acknowledge him as the true king and a liberator. Are you an ancient Egyptian who can prove me wrong?

We are Egyptians. We know more about our history than you do.

Ancient Egypt is not a different race of people. People use that term to differentiate the time periods.

Ahmed I'm Irish and I know jack squat about what my ancestors considered 500 years ago.

Well then you don't have a strong connection with your heritage.

Le Caire wrote:We are Egyptians. We know more about our history than you do.

Ancient Egypt is not a different race of people. People use that term to differentiate the time periods.

I hope that first sentence doesn't apply to everyone who isn't egyptian...

What do you mean?

Wait, sorry, I meant the first two sentences. Sorry i'm just really tired

I mean that I hope you're not inferring that anyone who isn't of egyptian descent is incapable of deeper research and fact finding in comparison with egyptians themselves simply because you're egyptian and they're not *takes a deep breath*

Besides, you're digressing from the topic at hand and turning it into a debate of whether the egyptians initially welcomed Alexander or conceded to his rule simply because it was the wiser option. How would we know when we don't seem to have any ancient texts shedding light on the matter? We can't be sure of their intentions; we can only be sure of the outcome of Alexander's legislative policies and whether his rule was more liberal or oppressive than the previous regime governing Egypt. The rest is pure speculation. It's not important, lest you want to shove the theme of 'egyptian pride' which never succumbs to foreign influence/power.

I mean that I hope you're not inferring that anyone who isn't of egyptian descent is incapable of deeper research and fact finding in comparison with egyptians themselves simply because you're egyptian and they're not *takes a deep breath*

You mean archaeologists/Egyptologists? In that case they most likely no more. But that wasn't the point of discussion. We were talking about the common people.

Besides, you're digressing from the topic at hand and turning it into a debate of whether the egyptians initially welcomed Alexander or conceded to his rule simply because it was the wiser option.

*Cough*

Preid1220 wrote:BTW on a trip to Egypt he visited a well known temple and after arriving was Greeted as the Embodiment of a god.

*Cough*

I was the last person to chip in my advice...it was Preid, Sayf and flame.

We can't be sure of their intentions; we can only be sure of the outcome of Alexander's legislative policies and whether his rule was more liberal or oppressive than the previous regime governing Egypt. The rest is pure speculation.

Great. Say that to Pried

You mean archaeologists/Egyptologists? In that case they most likely no more. But that wasn't the point of discussion. We were talking about the common people.

Ah I see, just checking


Well ok, given...preid did start it. But that last quote of mine applies to all of you involved in the argument, namely: you, flame and preid. The fact is you're also contending that you have knowledge of the egyptians' intentions when they were supposedly deifying Alexander and succumbing to his authority. Unless you can show me an ancient manuscript/papyrus that proves what you're saying, it's nothing more than speculation. It should be left at that.

The fact is you're also contending that you have knowledge of the egyptians' intentions

What I said was that, if there are people who come close to knowing about "intentions" then it would be the Egyptian people. That's what I was saying.

Of course this is speculation...no one writes intentions, but it's called critical thinking.

Historians have used speculation based on their former knowledge of a people to declare what the reasons for something was. We are doing the same.

Critical thinking has no basis without the empirical evidence, and if you have no proof that this attitude emanating from the egyptians is a recurrent theme throughout their history whenever a new regime emerges, then you have no ground to stand on. Otherwise it's pointless being so confidently sure your opinion is factually correct and going to the extreme by labelling someone who projects his own 'critical thinking' an idiot.

If similar events have occurred in egyptian history and the proof is there then it would be permissible to employ analogy when trying to analyse the motives for the egyptians' initial response to Alexander's imperial rule. However you have not shown this.

Tell preid.

Except I have used critical thinking, Preid hasn't. Preid knows about the ancient Egyptians as much as I do about the history of Djibuti, barely anything.

Who's djibuti?

Well ok, it is a bit pretentious to assume you have knowledge of the intentions of an ancient civilization whilst none of your cultural heritage stems from the same country, besides your claims not being backed up by the findings of the experts in that field of research (egyptologists,archaeologists etc.).

The question is: do you have empirical evidence for what you're suggesting (such as papyri, manuscripts and the like)?

Dijbuti is a small country in Africa. Borders Sudan.

Oh no and to think I thought that djibuti was a person

Thanks for the heads up Ahmed.

The French Territory of the Afars and the Issas became Djibouti in 1977. Hassan Gouled APTIDON installed an authoritarian one-party state and proceeded to serve as president until 1999. Unrest among the Afars minority during the 1990s led to a civil war that ended in 2001 following the conclusion of a peace accord between Afar rebels and the Issa-dominated government. In 1999, Djibouti's first multi-party presidential elections resulted in the election of Ismail Omar GUELLEH; he was re-elected to a second term in 2005. Djibouti occupies a strategic geographic location at the mouth of the Red Sea and serves as an important transshipment location for goods entering and leaving the east African highlands. The present leadership favors close ties to France, which maintains a significant military presence in the country, but also has strong ties with the US. Djibouti hosts the only US military base in sub-Saharan Africa.

Nice job with wikipedia

^Actually CIA world factbook. And I'm not claiming the info as my own, Just posting it for Ameer.

Hmm , a former french colony with the french military still present. I wonder if any of the political parties that consist of the afars are more 'liberal' than the issas in the sense that strong ties with France isn't a priority with them (naturally being followed by cries for independance and reform). Otherwise there's a new 'Rome' in town (besides america) which has left a scar on djibouti politics (much like the arab monarchies with respect to europe's cultural influence on their policies).