5 ms·

It's fascinating how little documents we have of people who were incredibly famous and powerful while they lived. Often, some claim that Jesus of Nazareth didn

by rmc 11y ago

It's fascinating how little documents we have of people who were incredibly famous and powerful while they lived. Often, some claim that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist because we have no documented evidence of him from his lifetime. But Alexander was viewed (in his time) as conquring the whole world, and we still don't have written evidence from his life.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago
> as conquring the whole world Unless it's a matter of speech, he conquered about 3.5% of the world's land mass and about a third of the (estimated) population, neither of which put you in the top 3 and couldn't be considered the 'whole world' either. By land mass it's not even in the top 20 largest empires ever. He was unique not for the greatest empire but rather for being so primely responsible for the massive empire he did create and in doing it all in about 12 years, the British empire for example by comparison has no single persons who were so primely responsible with many leaders emerging over hundreds of years, combined with his personal role in battles, all of which ending in victory, makes him the stuff of legends.
- StuffMaster 11y ago
  He conquered the "known world", I believe is how it goes.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    Well he factually didn't even from the perspective of 'his known world', Alexander both turned back from on campaign, and had planned another campaign he didn't live to initiate. But regardless it strikes me as a pretty ridiculous claim to make, (especially today) when an estimated 70% of the world population lived in places (they obviously know) that weren't conquered by Alexander. After all there is no 'the' known world. You can find many millions of people who have not a clue of the world beyond a few miles away and you'll thereby find many different people who each rule their known world.
- rmc 11y ago
  Yes it is a manner of speech. My full quote was: "Alexander was viewed (in his time) as conquring the whole world".
protomyth 11y ago
Its also interesting the mindset of some of the documents. We have a distinctly European view of Genghis Khan which might be more 'look at the devil' than reality or what was said in the home grown documents.
- rmc 11y ago
  Genghis Khan is an example of history written by the losers. The Vikings were also written about by the people they invaded and killed, hence why they were thought of as so fierce. It is definitely not the case that "history is (always) written by the victors".
selleck 11y ago
Ozymandias Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792 - 1822 I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

by rmc 11y ago

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

> as conquring the whole world Unless it's a matter of speech, he conquered about 3.5% of the world's land mass and about a third of the (estimated) population, neither of which put you in the top 3 and couldn't be considered the 'whole world' either. By land mass it's not even in the top 20 largest empires ever. He was unique not for the greatest empire but rather for being so primely responsible for the massive empire he did create and in doing it all in about 12 years, the British empire for example by comparison has no single persons who were so primely responsible with many leaders emerging over hundreds of years, combined with his personal role in battles, all of which ending in victory, makes him the stuff of legends.

StuffMaster 11y ago
He conquered the "known world", I believe is how it goes.
- IkmoIkmo 11y ago
  Well he factually didn't even from the perspective of 'his known world', Alexander both turned back from on campaign, and had planned another campaign he didn't live to initiate. But regardless it strikes me as a pretty ridiculous claim to make, (especially today) when an estimated 70% of the world population lived in places (they obviously know) that weren't conquered by Alexander. After all there is no 'the' known world. You can find many millions of people who have not a clue of the world beyond a few miles away and you'll thereby find many different people who each rule their known world.
rmc 11y ago
Yes it is a manner of speech. My full quote was: "Alexander was viewed (in his time) as conquring the whole world".

protomyth 11y ago

Its also interesting the mindset of some of the documents. We have a distinctly European view of Genghis Khan which might be more 'look at the devil' than reality or what was said in the home grown documents.

rmc 11y ago
Genghis Khan is an example of history written by the losers. The Vikings were also written about by the people they invaded and killed, hence why they were thought of as so fierce. It is definitely not the case that "history is (always) written by the victors".

selleck 11y ago

Ozymandias Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792 - 1822 I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.”