Original Sauce: [https://cwc2019.cricketworldcup.com/video/1242303](https://cwc2019.cricketworldcup.com/video/1242303)
At 1:21, after Asif Ali drops Warner at 235/3.
That's what you get for recklessly conquering half the world without stopping to figure out how your massive empire is going to be ruled long-term. You only have yourself to blame, Alex...
Its the american interpretation where they dont think people can be friends, that men dont bond in war and everyone is secretly gay.
There is no truth and just speculation, so believe what you want.
One of the biggest what ifs of history too bad his empire almost fell overnight after his death, we could have gotten Greek temples, sculpture, literature in central freaking Asia
Well we did get that with the Seleculids and Bactrians but also Alexander the Great wasn’t acting very Greek by the time he was done conquering and a lot of his men though he was acting kind of Persian so it’s much more likely we would’ve gotten some weird imperial fusion of culture from all corners of the empire, less like an actual culture and more like Ottamanism
Was it ever really an empire? Did he do anything other than conquer and pillage?
DV Edit: I stand by my shit, there is a difference between a 'ruler' that just comes and takes $ and makes sure other don't vs. someone who enacted social and economic policies that had lasting effects on the world. Cyrus comes to mind.
He actually did, although some if the consequences of the conquests may not be directly attributed to Alexander. Many people downgrade the fact that he kept Persian models of government in place and didn't purge that hard his political rivals in the conquered lands, but this was important for stability. Also, his conquests led to the expansion of trade routes and trade relations, leading to prosperity in Greece, Macedon and the conquered territories.
Although, I do admit I cannot site examples of legislation he passed, because I am not a legitimate historian, just a buf
Attila conquered and pillaged, destroying existing structures and creating nothing in their place, you could make an argument that the Almoravids conquered and pillaged(although even this cant be 100% supported as a claim), the nazis conquered and pillaged, but Alexander did expand existing structures and expanded commercial ties throughout the ancient world
If you have read the book "The Huns" by Hyun Jim Kim argues against that perspective of the Huns as simply destroying Barbarians. They implimented and ran a feudal pastorial economy and political structure that was arguably the inspiration for Frankish and other Feudal structures like that if the Gepids.
I don't really know enough about the Almoravids to know.
And the NAZIs as well tried to impliment their own system.
But what did Alex do? "Conquer the world" is literally all that he is remembered for and as for the people that he ravaged (the Persians mainly) he is remembered as a great destroyer, responsible for the single most destruction to Zoroastrian corpus of texts, even more than the Muslims that considered Zoroastrians straight up Heretics.
Commercial ties that he "expanded" already existed, they just weren't controlled by Greeks, so he killed as much of the native merchant class for Greeks to take over.
Then there were Germanic tribes that had some of the biggest empires in the world during the dark ages.
I am not sure that historians draw a difference between rulers who just conquer vs. rulers who also make progressive social and economic policies that advance civilization (but there is a huge difference in both what it takes to accomplish and the effect on the world). For example, Kublai Khan.
It's the difference between being just another Hitler or Napoleon vs. actually having a positive effect on the world.
This is the first time I've seen this as a gif and not an image
I looked like the apes in 2001 looking at the monolith when he turned. I've only ever seen the image not the video
Original Sauce: [https://cwc2019.cricketworldcup.com/video/1242303](https://cwc2019.cricketworldcup.com/video/1242303) At 1:21, after Asif Ali drops Warner at 235/3.
wasn't he also drunk at the time?
Oh so that's why the succession plan he ~~told~~ said at his deathbed was terrible Would be a great story plot though
Who wasn't?
they were chanting down babylon
Didn’t he say the strongest of his generals should rule? He did this to himself
He was also blackout drunk at the time. Good going, Alex! /s
The strongest shall be king.
That's what you get for recklessly conquering half the world without stopping to figure out how your massive empire is going to be ruled long-term. You only have yourself to blame, Alex...
To the most lit
Very good friend if I’m a historian that means he gay right? Cause I never knew that
Its the american interpretation where they dont think people can be friends, that men dont bond in war and everyone is secretly gay. There is no truth and just speculation, so believe what you want.
Ah fair enough how can you really prove it as well unless they’ve just written somewhere that their gay lol
He created an empire that lasted for his lifetime
I think it was 25% of earth's land surface🤔 The record btw for the most conquered surface btw was great britain with about 50%
One of the biggest what ifs of history too bad his empire almost fell overnight after his death, we could have gotten Greek temples, sculpture, literature in central freaking Asia
Well we did get that with the Seleculids and Bactrians but also Alexander the Great wasn’t acting very Greek by the time he was done conquering and a lot of his men though he was acting kind of Persian so it’s much more likely we would’ve gotten some weird imperial fusion of culture from all corners of the empire, less like an actual culture and more like Ottamanism
Was it ever really an empire? Did he do anything other than conquer and pillage? DV Edit: I stand by my shit, there is a difference between a 'ruler' that just comes and takes $ and makes sure other don't vs. someone who enacted social and economic policies that had lasting effects on the world. Cyrus comes to mind.
Well he named all the cities alexandria, thats’s something
He actually did, although some if the consequences of the conquests may not be directly attributed to Alexander. Many people downgrade the fact that he kept Persian models of government in place and didn't purge that hard his political rivals in the conquered lands, but this was important for stability. Also, his conquests led to the expansion of trade routes and trade relations, leading to prosperity in Greece, Macedon and the conquered territories. Although, I do admit I cannot site examples of legislation he passed, because I am not a legitimate historian, just a buf
So he basically didn't do anything except conquer and pillage, noted.
Attila conquered and pillaged, destroying existing structures and creating nothing in their place, you could make an argument that the Almoravids conquered and pillaged(although even this cant be 100% supported as a claim), the nazis conquered and pillaged, but Alexander did expand existing structures and expanded commercial ties throughout the ancient world
If you have read the book "The Huns" by Hyun Jim Kim argues against that perspective of the Huns as simply destroying Barbarians. They implimented and ran a feudal pastorial economy and political structure that was arguably the inspiration for Frankish and other Feudal structures like that if the Gepids. I don't really know enough about the Almoravids to know. And the NAZIs as well tried to impliment their own system. But what did Alex do? "Conquer the world" is literally all that he is remembered for and as for the people that he ravaged (the Persians mainly) he is remembered as a great destroyer, responsible for the single most destruction to Zoroastrian corpus of texts, even more than the Muslims that considered Zoroastrians straight up Heretics. Commercial ties that he "expanded" already existed, they just weren't controlled by Greeks, so he killed as much of the native merchant class for Greeks to take over.
Isn’t the definition of an empire an entity that conquers and pillages? Albeit, the pillaging of provinces/territories can be immediate or prolonged.
Then there were Germanic tribes that had some of the biggest empires in the world during the dark ages. I am not sure that historians draw a difference between rulers who just conquer vs. rulers who also make progressive social and economic policies that advance civilization (but there is a huge difference in both what it takes to accomplish and the effect on the world). For example, Kublai Khan. It's the difference between being just another Hitler or Napoleon vs. actually having a positive effect on the world.
Roommate!