Do you think all of those people who Alexander conquered wanted to be conquered?
Did the vast numbers that Alexander killed want to be killed?
Hitler is bad, obviously. Why isn't Alexander viewed negatively too?
Hitler didn't just cause Jews to die. 20 million Russians died. That is a LOT of people. So, even if Hitler did not kill Jews, he would still be disgusting. But, why isn't Alexander also disgusting in people's eyes since he killed people?
2007-11-03 06:37:23 · 12 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
History is written by the victors...
and concentration camps don't help his case.
2007-11-03 06:40:12 · answer #1 · answered by You are all, weirdos. 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I understand your train of thought, however, you are really comparing apples and oranges. During that period, most of the Russians that were murdered were murdered by their own Country, and yet if you pick up and American History high school text book, this information is left out. Hitler is not hated primarily because he "conquered" other countries, rather, because he caused the Nazi holocaust. Alexander the Great did not cause the Nazi holocaust, or anything similar, and in fact, since what he did was in such a primitive time, it would be better to compare him to Atilla the Hun.
2007-11-03 06:42:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Its all about who writes the history books. How about Christopher Columbus? He committed genocide of the Indigenous Americans and now he has his own holiday. How about the Pope during the crusades? He was responsible for genocide of the Muslims. Yet the pope is viewed as a symbol of peace. The ones in power write the books. The ones in power were the white Christians. Thats why they come out as angels while Hitler is made to be the devil.
2007-11-03 06:45:44 · answer #3 · answered by Bob 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Alexander the Great set the stage for the rise of western civilization. The Persians had invaded the Greek isles before Alexander (they were the aggressors) and the Greeks under Alexander went to make sure the Persian empire never again became strong enough to threaten them.
Without Alexander there would have been no Roman empire, no romance languages, no western civilization.
Hitler was a madman/murderer who only wanted to be the agressor and executioner of millions.
2007-11-03 06:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by Ancient Warrior DogueDe Bordeaux 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No one living today had a parent who was murdered on the orders of Alexander the Great.
2007-11-06 08:28:04 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In his way Stalin replaced into yet another Hitler, and Stalin lasted longer in skill, and died of previous age, nonetheless in skill. Stalin replaced into in fee of Soviet Russia, an considerable united states. considering that component there have been quite a few dictators in fee of countries that have had huge impression, e.g.Ghaddafi in Libya (small united states via inhabitants, yet enormous impression because of the fact of oil), Mao Tse Tung in China and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (oil, lower back, and examine out the chaos in Iraq considering he replaced into deposed). no one can are looking forward to the destiny, yet i would not be shocked to locate a dictator in an identical place to Hitler at it sluggish.
2016-10-14 21:44:23 · answer #6 · answered by launer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as the answerer said history is written by the Victors..
here is one closer to Home..
why is the Genocide of the Indigenous peoples of North America completely over looked? Men Like George Custer are childhood hero's ... rather than Serial Killers?
2007-11-03 06:42:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
alexander was no were close to how bad hitler was hitler wanted to make a super race or the perfect race an that was the german race.....hitler wanted to kill all the races but german. it was not only the jew he wanted to kill, the jews were just the first part of his plan. his plan was to take each race one by one an kill them off.......i cant tell u rly anything about alexander cuz i rly dont kno to much
2007-11-03 06:44:08 · answer #8 · answered by Leggo My Eggo 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It may be due to the times at hand. It is the same way as we view smoking today, versus 50 years ago when it was romanticized and considered cool. That being said, this is a very valid and fair comparison. Great question.
2007-11-03 06:40:41 · answer #9 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It was common for armies of the past to go around and kill all the severely injured or just allow them to bleed to death over 30 minutes or so as long as they remained quit and did not yell out or scream . thousands of men would be laying around wounded and dead and the victors would comfort their own and kill any of the wounded who fell in battle . Take no prisoners was the rule . Kill all the men and take the women and young children as spoils of war to be your slaves .
2007-11-03 06:49:30 · answer #10 · answered by TroubleMaker 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋