3 ms·
Come again? First, Google and Wikipedia are better than no source at all, which is what we have so far. Second, my googling includes Google Book Search, which i
by gruseom 15y ago
Come again? First, Google and Wikipedia are better than no source at all, which is what we have so far. Second, my googling includes Google Book Search, which is far more efficient for this type of random query than anything I ever did in libraries. Third, it sounds like you're assuming the story about Alexander is true, where "true" here can be taken to mean "comes from the traditional stories about Alexander". I'm suggesting that it doesn't. For one thing, Plutarch's life of Alexander doesn't mention the story. Plutarch would be the last person to leave out a good one like that.
I'm happy to be wrong, but showing that requires a source. As far as I can tell, the story was originally about Tariq ibn Ziyad (see my other comment in this thread) and subsequently hopped to Caesar, Alexander, and Cortes, probably because they were better known.
- bh42222 15y agoOn second thought, you are right. I was thinking of Alexander having to build boats in India. On the other hand, Google book search has never worked for me. But I do think Google is waaaay better then nothing. Howewver, I am not certain that Wikipedia, as it stands, is actually a net gain.