it keeps the recently conquered people happy. to take their land, and then replace their religions would have caused more trouble than war with soldiers. civil unrest cannot be controlled through might, but only through giving in to their demands, so it was easier to let them worship their beliefs. he wanted land, not converts.
2007-01-07 07:10:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by SAINT G 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
ok, i will chew. it really is somewhat like the OJ Simpson trial, which confirmed that regardless of vast quantities of information that factors to an obtrusive end, peoples minds might want to be said in the route of a end that makes no experience in any respect, except to fulfill what the jurors needed - that's, a fashion to locate OJ not to blame. right here, the author of the question looks to settle on to manage to say that Christ became a god. The files to help this searching are, regardless of the indisputable fact that, really suspect, having been written after the time, been really edited, and having lengthy handed through more desirable palms, languages and really inspired revisionists, etc. etc. than a fish at a Tokyo meat marketplace. So, to make those suspect files more desirable palatable, the author seeks to impugn the files of any and all historic figures, utilising Alexander the large because the party. that's an attempt to tutor a good through setting up a negative, and actual backfires through demonstrating the weak point of the unique position. change: the author chastises me for implying the obtrusive; that she is arguing for Jesus being divine. She says that no the position does she propose that. regardless of the indisputable fact that, the 2d sentence of her own question evidently states "crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is an historic truth?”
2016-10-17 00:05:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by duperne 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Alexander wanted the citizens of the conquered nations to look on him as a "good" thing...so, he left their religion intact as well as their culture, trade, industry....all he did was leave his own governors and "accept" due tribute from them. In some places he evenleft their rulers intact. He didn't accept them, he merely let them remain. It was politically expedient for him to do so. Interesting, the Romans later followed his example when they conquered an formed an empire.
2007-01-07 07:25:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by aidan402 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Alexander wanted to have the conquered people on his side in order to help him keep his empire. In order to support this he asked his generals to take local wives and also not only he conquered Egypt but he "became" the Pharaoh
2007-01-07 12:03:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by lne21 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
If he had done otherwise, he would have infuriated the peoples and his rule could not have lasted. And then, the Greeks of his time did not necessarily look upon most other religions as different. They saw them merely as regional expressions of the true and almost ubiquitous polytheism. It was normal to identify foreign gods with homegrown ones (for example Astarte equals Aphrodite equals Venus). To force ones religion on other people is a very christian and muslim idea.
2007-01-07 07:25:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by mai-ling 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
because the guy had a brain, you don't make an empire by pissing everyone off...at least not for an length of time generally. Great examples in the hight of the Greek Empire.
2007-01-07 07:20:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Blue Abyss 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
because he wanted to and he wanted to rule
2007-01-07 07:10:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mysterious 4
·
0⤊
0⤋