Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

There is a popular but inaccurate narrative that presents Alexander the Great as a rapacious conqueror. But the contextual facts of the time suggest there was a need to secure Greece from attacks and build a buffer of allies and not enemies around Greece so that invasions were less likely. Stability was the game. That was why Alexander turned East - that was were the enemy at the time (and now ?) was to be found. No major enemies in the West, then...

Indeed, Greeks had in fact turned West also and did much good as far as Britain, France and Italy were concerned - seeing much from early Greek explorations.

How much worse the enemies from the East would have been today without Alexander's early spread of learning?

10,000 gazans and 80,000 indians killed. these numbers compared to todays population would be 3.5 million. rapacious my left foot genocidal.

By the same idiotic reckoning the 6 million Jews of the 2nd WW would amount to 150 million, with ...inflation that is!!

Have you always been this stupid?

has the world population gone up by 2500 percent since ww2. get your medication checked old man those blue tablets you are taking are not for your dementia and are making your brain turn to mush.

talking of mush

mush mush mush.

Hey, mush-mush, have you found that holiday video evidence of Alexander and his mates killing all those people 2,500 years ago? His selfie next to a beheaded woman would support your claims nicely? No?

And never mind inflating figures to index-link to today's population (since there were no body- counters keeping such records back 2,500 years ago) - have you done the sums for the recent genocided bodies that we do have numbers for? Those 2 Million Greeks and Armenians Turkey killed during its birth as a terrorist nation only 100 years ago?

Hmm .... I make that 30 Million Greeks and Armenians genocided by Turkey in little over a few months ...

The Byzantines deleted all public records including his Facebook and Twitter account!

[Nikitas]

Alexander went as far as India to protect Greece from invaders? Are you kidding or what! It was an imperial conquest, and it would have done a hell of a lot more good if it had been directed west.

Today in southern Italy there is an area the Italians call Magna Grecia, Greater Greece, where they speak a dialect, Grico, much like Cypriot. THere you can see how Greek culture develops free from the eastern influence, and in my opinion it is not at all bad. This pocket of Hellenism is infinitely more significant to Greek culture than Agia Sofia. Problem is that most Greek scholars do not want to get involved with Greek dialects and prefer get morose about a building put up by an emperor whose aim in life was to utter the words "I have beaten thee oh Solomon" with all that this implies.

These scholars like to harp on the eastern aspect, with phrases like "η καθ'ημάς ανατολή" and other BS. But most of the eastern influence seen today is imported post 1922.

If it were not for the 1922 disaster Greek culture today would have been more western.

A good indicator is popular music, compare pre 1922 with what came later and you see how Greece was easternised in one generation. The cantades of the west were replaced by the amane and tsiftetelia brought by the refugees. Nothing wrong with the music and other cultural expressions, but it helps to remember that it is not the only nor the main culture of the nation. It is a recent import and not as traditional as some like to think.

[Paphitis]

Alexander went as far as India to protect Greece from invaders? Are you kidding or what! It was an imperial conquest, and it would have done a hell of a lot more good if it had been directed west.

Today in southern Italy there is an area the Italians call Magna Grecia, Greater Greece, where they speak a dialect, Grico, much like Cypriot. THere you can see how Greek culture develops free from the eastern influence, and in my opinion it is not at all bad. This pocket of Hellenism is infinitely more significant to Greek culture than Agia Sofia. Problem is that most Greek scholars do not want to get involved with Greek dialects and prefer get morose about a building put up by an emperor whose aim in life was to utter the words "I have beaten thee oh Solomon" with all that this implies.

These scholars like to harp on the eastern aspect, with phrases like "η καθ'ημάς ανατολή" and other BS. But most of the eastern influence seen today is imported post 1922.

If it were not for the 1922 disaster Greek culture today would have been more western.

A good indicator is popular music, compare pre 1922 with what came later and you see how Greece was easternised in one generation. The cantades of the west were replaced by the amane and tsiftetelia brought by the refugees. Nothing wrong with the music and other cultural expressions, but it helps to remember that it is not the only nor the main culture of the nation. It is a recent import and not as traditional as some like to think.

Yiasou Nikitara!

[miltiades]

There is a popular but inaccurate narrative that presents Alexander the Great as a rapacious conqueror. But the contextual facts of the time suggest there was a need to secure Greece from attacks and build a buffer of allies and not enemies around Greece so that invasions were less likely. Stability was the game. That was why Alexander turned East - that was were the enemy at the time (and now ?) was to be found. No major enemies in the West, then...

Indeed, Greeks had in fact turned West also and did much good as far as Britain, France and Italy were concerned - seeing much from early Greek explorations.

How much worse the enemies from the East would have been today without Alexander's early spread of learning?

10,000 gazans and 80,000 indians killed. these numbers compared to todays population would be 3.5 million. rapacious my left foot genocidal.

By the same idiotic reckoning the 6 million Jews of the 2nd WW would amount to 150 million, with ...inflation that is!!

Have you always been this stupid?

has the world population gone up by 2500 percent since ww2. get your medication checked old man those blue tablets you are taking are not for your dementia and are making your brain turn to mush.

talking of mush

mush mush mush.

Are you allowing for ...inflation ?

[Lordo]

There is a popular but inaccurate narrative that presents Alexander the Great as a rapacious conqueror. But the contextual facts of the time suggest there was a need to secure Greece from attacks and build a buffer of allies and not enemies around Greece so that invasions were less likely. Stability was the game. That was why Alexander turned East - that was were the enemy at the time (and now ?) was to be found. No major enemies in the West, then...

Indeed, Greeks had in fact turned West also and did much good as far as Britain, France and Italy were concerned - seeing much from early Greek explorations.

How much worse the enemies from the East would have been today without Alexander's early spread of learning?

10,000 gazans and 80,000 indians killed. these numbers compared to todays population would be 3.5 million. rapacious my left foot genocidal.

By the same idiotic reckoning the 6 million Jews of the 2nd WW would amount to 150 million, with ...inflation that is!!

Have you always been this stupid?

has the world population gone up by 2500 percent since ww2. get your medication checked old man those blue tablets you are taking are not for your dementia and are making your brain turn to mush.

talking of mush

mush mush mush.

Are you allowing for ...inflation ?

i can see that you certainly are regarding the old red tipple and in fact probably doubling the estimates to boot.

[Get Real!]

...there was a need to secure Greece from attacks

What Greece? There was no Greece and he was in Macedonia!

The City-States that comprised the Greek-speaking Nation - of which Macedonia was and is such a state - as was and is Cyprus. Thanks for that reminder to be more specific with the meaning of our English-given name.

You're talking shit as always but whatever makes you happy...

[GreekIslandGirl]

Alexander went as far as India to protect Greece from invaders? Are you kidding or what! It was an imperial conquest, and it would have done a hell of a lot more good if it had been directed west.

Today in southern Italy there is an area the Italians call Magna Grecia, Greater Greece, where they speak a dialect, Grico, much like Cypriot. THere you can see how Greek culture develops free from the eastern influence, and in my opinion it is not at all bad. This pocket of Hellenism is infinitely more significant to Greek culture than Agia Sofia. Problem is that most Greek scholars do not want to get involved with Greek dialects and prefer get morose about a building put up by an emperor whose aim in life was to utter the words "I have beaten thee oh Solomon" with all that this implies.

These scholars like to harp on the eastern aspect, with phrases like "η καθ'ημάς ανατολή" and other BS. But most of the eastern influence seen today is imported post 1922.

If it were not for the 1922 disaster Greek culture today would have been more western.

A good indicator is popular music, compare pre 1922 with what came later and you see how Greece was easternised in one generation. The cantades of the west were replaced by the amane and tsiftetelia brought by the refugees. Nothing wrong with the music and other cultural expressions, but it helps to remember that it is not the only nor the main culture of the nation. It is a recent import and not as traditional as some like to think.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Nikitas, as there are a number of contradictions in your rationale. These pockets of Greeks, further into the West, are protected precisely because of the greater buffering from enemies of the East. So why was India too far East to be a buffer for central Greece? Most of Hellenism flowed along Asia Minor after all.

So Alexander stopped at India. Should he have gone further? Of course - if he could!

To put this into perspective, India is further East for Britain (or West depending on your point of view) than it was for Alexander - yet Britain/France etc did not fail to explore there, multi-centuries later.

Alexander was a pacifist-stay-at-home compared to the mighty expanse of the British Empire. Greek states had been attacked by Persians and so Alexander had his reasons to disarm them. Britain was not attacked by anyone from its colonies.

[Paphitis]

Alexander went as far as India to protect Greece from invaders? Are you kidding or what! It was an imperial conquest, and it would have done a hell of a lot more good if it had been directed west.

Today in southern Italy there is an area the Italians call Magna Grecia, Greater Greece, where they speak a dialect, Grico, much like Cypriot. THere you can see how Greek culture develops free from the eastern influence, and in my opinion it is not at all bad. This pocket of Hellenism is infinitely more significant to Greek culture than Agia Sofia. Problem is that most Greek scholars do not want to get involved with Greek dialects and prefer get morose about a building put up by an emperor whose aim in life was to utter the words "I have beaten thee oh Solomon" with all that this implies.

These scholars like to harp on the eastern aspect, with phrases like "η καθ'ημάς ανατολή" and other BS. But most of the eastern influence seen today is imported post 1922.

If it were not for the 1922 disaster Greek culture today would have been more western.

A good indicator is popular music, compare pre 1922 with what came later and you see how Greece was easternised in one generation. The cantades of the west were replaced by the amane and tsiftetelia brought by the refugees. Nothing wrong with the music and other cultural expressions, but it helps to remember that it is not the only nor the main culture of the nation. It is a recent import and not as traditional as some like to think.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Nikitas, as there are a number of contradictions in your rationale. These pockets of Greeks, further into the West, are protected precisely because of the greater buffering from enemies of the East. So why was India too far East to be a buffer for central Greece? Most of Hellenism flowed along Asia Minor after all.

So Alexander stopped at India. Should he have gone further? Of course - if he could!

To put this into perspective, India is further East for Britain (or West depending on your point of view) than it was for Alexander - yet Britain/France etc did not fail to explore there, multi-centuries later.

Alexander was a pacifist-stay-at-home compared to the mighty expanse of the British Empire. Greek states had been attacked by Persians and so Alexander had his reasons to disarm them. Britain was not attacked by anyone from its colonies.

India on the other side of the world!

My my, what a buffer.

In Britain's time, India was not quite as far but for an army on foot, it took Alexander years to even get there as opposed to 2 weeks it would have taken Britain to get to India.

It was a conquest. A conquest of gigantic proportions at the time, even compared to the British Empire.

If Alexander The Great needed such a "buffer" then imagine the "buffer" Britain would need some 2400 years later.

[Paphitis]

There is a popular but inaccurate narrative that presents Alexander the Great as a rapacious conqueror. But the contextual facts of the time suggest there was a need to secure Greece from attacks and build a buffer of allies and not enemies around Greece so that invasions were less likely. Stability was the game. That was why Alexander turned East - that was were the enemy at the time (and now ?) was to be found. No major enemies in the West, then...

Indeed, Greeks had in fact turned West also and did much good as far as Britain, France and Italy were concerned - seeing much from early Greek explorations.

How much worse the enemies from the East would have been today without Alexander's early spread of learning?

10,000 gazans and 80,000 indians killed. these numbers compared to todays population would be 3.5 million. rapacious my left foot genocidal.

He was an imperialist pure and simple. But that's not all he was.

Obviously he killed, destroyed and plundered any city that stood in his way. However, he was also an intellectual who was educated by Plato himself and the Son of a brilliant military strategist, Philip of Macedon.

He founded entire cities, fortified cities he conquered and left behind soldiers to defend them. He considered every city and town as an integral part of his empire, and they also had political power and the right to elect their own leaders. Cities like Babylon prospered and became centers of Hellenism. Greece was considered by scholars as being the Cradle of Western Civilization and what a title that is. You have to ask yourself why. It's because Alexander offered so much in the development of the Western World so long ago in terms of Art, Culture, Medicine, Democracy etc.

Compare this to Genghis and the Mongols.

Genghis was an illiterate, a warlord in charge of a Nomadic Army of terrorists who sacked and pillaged everything in their wake. His home was a tent and his transport a horse. All the cities he raised, are still a pile of rubble to this day. He bought nothing constructive. He did not build libraries, contribute to Art, Culture, Medicine or Science like the Greeks did by laying the initial foundations of Western Civilisation as we know it today.

That is why Alexander is considered Great. He earned the respect and admiration of all throughout his empire even as far as India where in some areas a rare form of Ancient Greek is still spoken to this day.

There is a BIG difference.

The same can be said of countries like the USA. In 3000 years from now, scholars will be admiring its contributions to Western Civilisation much in the same way as they admire the Greeks. The reason of course is, that whilst the "imperialist" USA may have done many bad things and even started many wars and killed a lot of people much like Alexander The Great and Genghis Khan did, at least the USA ALSO offered a great deal more much like Alexander The Great did 2500 years ago and unlike the warlord Genghis Khan and his band of Nomadic Mongols and the cutthroats we see today in the Middle East that offer absolutely zilch other than suffering, and plunder.

The Roman Empire also left its mark and built on the foundations the Ancient Greeks left behind. But they are not the only ones. The Egyptians who predated the Romans and the Greeks offered so much as well. The Chinese too. The Persians and Assyrians also. And what about the Japanese? Even the Brits and its Empire made significant contributions to the Western world as we know it today, which the Ancient Greeks started 2500 years ago. Just the founding of the Great Nations of Australia, NZ and USA was a massive thing and these countries (Antipodes) contribute so much in their own right. The baton started off with Alexander and just gets passed on from one to another and today is held by the USA. Let's not forget Spain, France, Portugal and Germany either.

Compare all these to Genghis Khan and the Mongols or even the Ottoman Empire which took humanity back many centuries into the Dark Ages.

Mongolians just bought with them the Dark Ages.

[Cap]

c'mon guys.
This foreign stuff isn't helping the Cypriot cause.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its pains/mistakes!

I'm almost ashamed to admit that a fellow Cypriot - as you claim to be, Cap - (though, not born nor bred in Cyprus) can continually achieve such levels of blinkered tunnel-vision on Cyprus' destiny (something that even Lordo is well aware of) ...

Cyprus was under Lusignan rule in 1453.