Where does Alexander the Great lost the battle? They say he perished in Afghanistan. Now everyone say he got killed by elephants in India? So which one is true?

He's a legend. Nobody knows the truth. Its like bruce lee lost to the silat warrior nobody knows.

Bt the way do u know he is iskandar zulkarnain in our sejarah text book

from memory he lost the battle in india but didn't in the battle but on the way back from a mysterious illness. So your latter point holds more truth and the first

this is an easy search on the web, do your search first next time maybe?

This post has been edited by daccorn: Sep 8 2010, 09:56 PM

alexander the great and iskandar zulkarnain is different person

He never lostlah!

Its just that his troops got tired of non-stop war and didn't want to continue conquering the whole of India.

So he went back to Babylon to rest and plan further expansion of his empire into Arabian peninsular where he fell ill and died because of fever.

Nobody is sure what is his cause of death but its believed that he was poison because some of his generals cannot tahan war anymore.

It is believed that if he did not die at such a young age, he might be able to expand his empire all the way to China but we will never know.

Alexander died at 32. about my age now.

ok fine, he didn't lose but he did lost massive amounts of his troops. Although this is an extremely sensitive topic whether he lost or not because if your enemy can inflict massive amounts of losses on you causing you contemplate and actually forsaking the invasion and leave is like forfeiting a game. Just cause you stop playing it doesn't mean you didn't not lose.

I'm not that deep into this history but I think I will start investigating who actually came up with him losing a lot of troops but not losing in India because history is written by human and humans tend to have perceptive bias.

OK, please ignore this post I shall stay away from this thread

This post has been edited by daccorn: Sep 8 2010, 10:13 PM

Sorry I cannot agree. He did lost the battle in india, and was wounded. That battle alone caught him too many soldiers, and even if Alexander wasn't wounded and can continue fighting, the odds would be against him still. Greek's phalanx are great in the open field, but not in the forest. Phalanx was created to hold the line and anti cavalry & chariots. Unfortunately though, not elephants.

No doubt though Like you said, that Alexander would expand his empire all the way to China had he not died at such a young age. He himself once said that He will never stop marching forward until he reaches the end side of the world.

@LYN Forumers, Yes the Iskandar Zulkarnain in our sejarah text book is indeed referring to Alexander of Macedonia. There are even several books published about Why Alexander was Iskandar, and Why he was a Muslim. A stupid claim that I myself can shoot them back on the face just like that

Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC.

Read more articles, expand the knowledge .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

if Alexander are not death in 32 i dont think he can expand his kingdom much more, in the arab penisular and north africa maybe, but india and china at that time have powerfull empire with the most advance technology of the time and the long journey require to conquer these land will be very hard on the army supply of that time.

---

Added on September 8, 2010, 11:50 pmmany people rate Alexander as the greatest general of all time but i dont he is the greatest, for me it would be Subutai, Alexander is briliant with tactic and good at raising troop morale during battle, but Subutai was a an tactical and strategic genius, the greatest achivement being the demolition of the army of poland and hungary in two day commanding two army hundred of kilometer away of each other. as good as Alexander is he never routinely coordinated movement of several armies that are hundred of km away for each other.

i wonder why so many Islamic scholar try to make Alexander a muslim they should focus on Khalid ibn al-Walid, a general that i think is as good if not better that Alexander. conquering arabia, persia and syria in just 4 years.



This post has been edited by robertngo: Sep 8 2010, 11:50 PM

Alexander may expand his empire more to the east, but he may lost his lands in the west. Transportation and communication is bad in that time, it is hard to control an large empire at the time. Chou Empire in China creates fiefdoms is to lubricates the civil administrative system, because at the time, highly centralized government can't control local governments effectively, but through this system (so called feudal system), they will pay the price of fiefdoms will rebel someday. So, when Alexander expand his empire more to the east, there will be high probability that his generals in the west launch an open revolt against Alexander and split his empire up, but Alexander can do nothing but watch.

Alexander's Hellenistic Empire falls because his lands is too large to maintain a centralized government to rule over these lands, so it split into many diadochis... Roman Empire falls because it is too large to maintain a centralized government in Rome, end up with prefectural governments secede from Roman Empire unitarily and difficulties on transporting armies... Alexander' Hellenistic Empire may expand to China if he don't die young... end up Egypt taken over by Nubians and Balkan taken over by Peleponesian rebels.

Well based on what I saw on the History Channel just now, Alexander the Great did win 1 battle in India, but as he wanted to attack the other kings, they all decided to unite to face him, his armies sensing that going against an Indian army who is 300k strong refuse to be drawn into another battle hence forced him to head back to Persia, apparently while he was in India, he contracted Malaria and died as he got back to Babylon.

I read another book on this subject in this book they said that he got poisoned by one of his courtiers in Babylon. So I guess as per where he died, the majority of the sources seem to indicate that it was in Babylon. Even the movie Alexander seems to show this. As to his death, that is very vague......

And I do think that Alexander the great is know as Iskandar Zulkarnian in our history text books, I don't see how can 1 claim otherwise

In the Muslim Quran, there is a "Tokoh" in which they called Iskandar Zulkarnain, and they have also pathetically sent out scholars and Ulamas to search the truth behind this name. They finally related him with Alexander of Macedonia. A claim in which is absurd and Stupid. ( I mean no offense to my muslim friends, But please continue reading to know what I am pointing out. )

I myself is a huge fan of history, and I cannot stand history being distorted just because a certain group of people trying to make themselves look good. Alexander was born to King Phillip of Macedonia, a state in which practices greek gods teaching. They believe in Olympia and Athena as their world of gods and paradise and whereas Zeus as the god of gods. Alexander himself was rumored to be a descendant of Achilles himself , the Demi god of war. In Alexander's campaign to India, he once compared himself to Heracles , the son of Zeus ( Romans know Heracles as Hercules ) and was challenged by his generals when he made such comparison remark. Alexander commanded back "Why not?" To his fellow commanders, this therefore confirmed Alexander's faith in Greek Gods. If Alexander was indeed Iskandar, and is claimed to be an Islam person, Will the macedonian troops marched with him and die for him ?

In the Muslim scholar's research, Iskandar even came to Malaya before and stayed at a small town in Kelantan ( You can see how farking ridiculous this is going ) and planned to conquer the whole of Malaya. Also to mention, Iskandar spent 20 years in Indonesia to "Berdakwah" . Point #1, Alexander died at the age of 32-33. He led his first cavalry group at the age of 16-18 in greece. So when exactly did these 20 years took place?

Iskandar also travelled and conquered part of western china and eventually spreaded his conquest to japan and korea. The world's biggest Empire was therefore formed, dont you think ? From greece to middle east asia, to south east asia and ended in east asia. But, according to the history, the world's largest empire was founded by a man name Gengkhis Khan, the Mongol warlord who then formed the Yuan Dynasty in china. Alexander's empire from greece to egypt to Persia is only known as the second largest empire. So where is this so called empire by Iskandar?

Another fact to push away the Islamic scholar's research is, China was never defeated by any troops from the west until the Opium war. China's only foreign conquerors were the Mongols and the Manchus. Islam scholars claimed that the present day Xinjiang ( Uyghur ) was the best prove of Islamic presence, well yes. But did they know that Xinjiang was also known as east turkmenistan ? and also north east Krgystan ? These 2 are Islamic states out of china until during the Qing Dynasty when they were brought to submission by the Manchu army rulling china that time.

I have no faith at all in our school history book, most of what they told us are lies just to glorify Islam and Malaysia. Alexander the great was a homosexual, a practice that was allowed in the greek teachings but not in Islam. They even claimed that Alexander's teacher, the philosopher scorates was a muslim as well.

DO you guys know what the most ironic thing is ? Islam did not even come to the world yet when Alexander was breathing until 1,000 years later. And these fools are claiming that Alexander is their so called dream Iskandar? I think its full of bullshit. If this is the best the Muslim scholars can do, then their level of education and knowledge is really pathetic.

Alexander and his army, drinks wine, womanizes , are homosexuals, and worshipped godly statues (Paganism ), these are all forbidden values in islam and yet the scholars dared to claimed it as their history and glorify it while they themselves condemn everyone who are practicing these values today ?

Another prove of our Incompetent knowledge in history is , If you guys remember the story of the Sultan of Malacca receiving Admiral Zheng He of china. It was mentioned that China was mesmerized by the sultanate of Malacca and decided to form good friendship with Malacca, and thus showing the Intelligence of the sultan and strength of Malacca. But there is one thing the book didn't mention though, the Book didn't mention about the 64 war ships weighing 1,500 tonnes each , carrying 30,000 chinese troops. And this was only an expedition voyage, not yet a conquest one. The government of Palembang in indonesia fought back and as the result, the entire Palembang royal family was captured and brought back to china to be shown off to the emperor. The book failed to mention that as well. Clearly, the Kesultanan Melaka was intimidated and had no choice but to receive the envoy with an open arm. It was Malacca bowing to China, not the otherwise. Malacca was not even mentioned as a great significance in their side of the record. Sri Lankan's royal family was also captured and brought back to china to show to the emperor when they fought back. Could the silat dancers really have held these chinese army that defeated even the fearless mongols? and not to mention these chinese dudes had almost 4,000 years of war experience backing them up.


So Alexander is Iskandar ? Or just another fiction created by the Muslim to gain more popularity point ? Did Iskandar ever existed at all actually ? Because from what they described him and the area of his Empire, I don't think such person ever existed. Specially when they talked about the empire spreading as vast to china , korea and japan. No empire in the miedeval age nor earlier was able to match with the army of the east. ( east as in East Asia )

Discuss ahead.

Alexander is called Iskandar in Arabic. But Iskandar Zulkarnain defitnetely not the Alexander of Macedon.

alexander and iskandar dzulkarnain were not the same person... they lived in different era btw...

Actually if he did not fall ill and died, wonder what would have happened

hmm.. i learned something new..

This is very controversial issue at this hypersensitive time. Please keep the troll at minimum.

A dead Greek from many many generations ago...seriously?

While posting on LYN...seriously?

2 most commonly accepted death are either poison from his general (antipater) or malaria fever contracted at india. I think the question should be HOW he died.

About iskandar vs alexander ............. well I laughed out loud whenever i see any channel in tv showing the comparison. I think some did point out good knock out points. Well as always history is written by different point of view, hence there will many inconsistencies here and there. Just to point out some of my opinion about our history book :
1) Omission of major events :
WWII is the biggest event ever known but only explain in brief
Why ? Cos we are the losers or conquered by the "bad guy" thats like worse than the worst. Thats why the french talk more about napoleon than de gaulle.

2) Inconsistency of facts
If i did remember correctly, the mongols are always excluded from the history, like appear here and there (always elusive)
Why ? Cos they destroy islam civilization. (hulagu, tamerlane)

I can go whole day talking about it but why bore. But I do like some islamic civ especially about saladin. Accepted by friends and rivals alike. But why such a less exposure ? Cos the ultimate prize is jerusalem and currently is under israel. If its not......well you can see the whole history book just touch about crusades (jihad).

And melaka compared to china thing....... I think even a 3 year old can tell you.

Afghan ladies. What else?

alexander the great and iskandar zulkarnain is different person...
most historians make mistakes in this..

I still have yet to see an explanation or a source on why Alexander is not Iskandar. Please stop resorting to one liners in this section (reserve it for other parts of LYN) and please use something to back up your arguments

1. statement (followed by)
2. reasons why (preferably with a source quoted)

There is something I've been meaning to tell people like you in LYN , specially in the PHD section. If you wanna troll , bring it to /k/. I don't know if you read anything at all in this thread , but I definitely didn't see any input from you to this thread. You asked for source, is that a request for validity ? If I say 1+1=2 here, would you ask for the source too ? Perhaps a statement , the 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia was Tun Dr Mahathir, do you need a source for that as well ?

Be reminded that this is the PhD School section, and although It did not mean that only PhD scholars can be in here, but it definitely is a place where people discuss their mind and knowledge away. If everyone comes in and start posting sources, they might as well dont voice out their own opinion then.

Why is Alexander , Iskandar then ? Enlighten us with what you know, and don't try to be a bigger man with empty talk.

Don't act smart here my friend, some people who lurk here are of completely different levels than those in RWI and /K/,

I don't believe I'm trolling. I'm just asking for some backup for some statements.

So I guess you wouldn't agree if I say there were elements of sarcasm in your posts? and Not to mention a total failure of providing any inputs at all to the topic ?

We are here to discuss what we know about the topic , from what we have learnt and how we interpret a certain occasion in relation to history. Even an Archaeologist has to make many assumptions before drawing a conclusion. This is where we share and correct each other if wrong. Furthermore regarding this topic, there are many unreliable sources out there due to the fact that it is religiously motivated.

Sometimes its more important to spread a message across rather than throwing jargons around. Hence we have someone like stephen hawking explaining astrophysics stuffs to us in lay man terms.

I think the point of stating whether who is who is rather shallow compared to the reasons behind it.
No doubt everyone wants someone "great" in their history book and I supposed he should be the greatest behind it.

Main arguments :
1) Timeline : Islam civilization begins around 600 AD, Alexander is 300 BC, thats like a thousand year gap. I dont know how someone can write so much about someone about a thousand years ago.

2) Beliefs : Those are the days of paganism (even before Romans). Alexander liken himself to Achilles one of the heroes of Troy. It based on the greek mythologies, any islamic comparison ?

3) Zulkarnain means 2 horns, Alexander is called by a similar name in Egypt as a reference to their gods too. But correct me that Egypt is under no Islamic influence during that period, they are worshipping Amun.

4) Alexander is not really the "model" type. He pillage, murder, homosexual, hubris ........ etc. Not someone you want to be a prophet do you ?

[[/B]

The first man is actually Pangu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangu
He appeared long before Adam the Jew/Arab.

How about the Graet warrior- Genghis khan 成吉思汗?????