Samrat Alikasudaro(Alexander) a Hindu by religion and greek by nationality

[ombakth]

Samrat Alikasudaro (Samrat Alexander)

Even Alexander (Samrat Akilendra) after his conquest followed the shraman dharma of Hindu Shramanism, Jainism and buddhism indirectly ancient Indian dharma and stopped conquering India. He even wanted to take a Hindu Shraman(sadhu) or a Jain acharya Kalanos with him but due to the unfavorable climatic condition Kalanos took Samadhi before reaching Greece.

The edict of Ashoka contains the name Alikasudaro

In the Gandhari original Antiochos is referred as "Amtiyoko nama yona-raja" (lit. "The Greek king by the name of Antiokos"), beyond whom live the four other kings: "param ca tena Atiyokena cature 4 rajani Turamaye nama Amtikini nama Maka nama Alikasudaro nama" (lit. "And beyond Antiochus, four kings by the name of Ptolemy, the name of Antigonos, the name of Magas, the name Alexander"

Alikasudaro was the Indian name of Alexander of Epirus (272-258 B.C.) there even for Alexander the Great the name Alikasudaro is applicable.

[Guest guest]

Everything written above is incorrect.

 

Alexander is not mentioned in any Indian record including Ashoka's columns. Ashoka only mentions kings who were his contemporaries. Alexander was a butcher who slaughtered countless civilians in his blood thirsty conquests. There is no record of him picking up Indian religion and he never made it back to his home. He died in Nebuchadrezzar's palace in Babylon.

 

He is known as Alexander the Great only for his success in military campaigns.

[ombakth]

Agreed, it was Another Alexander but I am talking about Indian Pronounciation. In ashoka's writing there is a mention of another alexander who was called Alikasudaro that means the Indian word for Alexander is Alikasudaro. Hence instead of calling even the Alexander the great as sikandar we can call him by his India pronounced name Alikasudaro. Not the persian and muslim pronounced name Sikandar.

 

Another Important thing is that he was accompanied by some Indian rishi. Who he claimed to be as his friend. His name was Kalanos. Whom Alexander treated as friend.

 

Another important thing inspite of having all the riches he still went ahead to conquer more land he did not stood at one place and enjoyed all the riches. His ultimate intentions were to unite all people of different nations together but when he came across Indian ascetics Hindu rishis, Jain acharyas and Buddhist monks he understood that it is not necessary to conquer people inorder to unite them unity can be brought even from peaceful means. Apart from mutiny of his soldiers and powerful Indian monarchs this was one of the reason why he returned back from India.

 

There were many invaders take for example muslims who forced their way of religion and rules on the people whom the conquered but alexander was the only one who accepted and to some extent followed the life style of the people whom he conquered. He also asked his greek men to marry persians and create a new mix breed generation. Agreed he was blood thirsty conqueror but even you cannot nelgect some of the good points. He was much better than the muslim and british invaders to our country. He would have always liked to be treated as one among us.

[ombakth]

Alexander wanted to taKe Kalanos to greece to preach greeks that there are few things that is above money and power. He wanted to make the greeks aware that with salvation and tapaysay one could gain more peace but unfortunately Kalanos had to take samadhi later on Alexander managed to pursuade a buddhist go along with him to greece and preach the greek the path of Dharma I have forgotten the name of that buddhist monk I think it was sakyamuni, but unfortunately before alexander can do so his generals killed him. But some of his generals did managed to take sakyamuni to Greece hence there are traces of buddhism in Greece later on buddhism spread due to Indo-Greek kings in and around Asia minor and also due to Ashoka the Great who spread indian dharma in most part of the world.

 

You might have observed in most cases whenever a person wants to do something good he is generally opposed by his community etc. same was the case with Alexander because Alexander was mixing up non greeks with greeks some of the generals opposed him and were always in the quest of defaming him. Eventhough Alexander was a rutheless warrior but one should not forget that he alteast attempted to mix up people and give them equal status whether greeks or non greeks but if you compare Alexander with those muslim fanatics then you will find out that Alexander was much better than Muslim fanatics. If alexander was alive he would have spreaded Dharma to entire Europe but Muslim fanatics always tried to end Dharmic religion. Muslims forced people to convert to Islam otherwise they used to kill them but Alexander did not forced any one to accept Jupiter as the main god. Alexander respected other religions. He used to always communicate with ascetics of different religion and tried to establish a common belief not only of greeks. In additions to that Jupiter is actually a greek version of Indra so this also indicates that indirectly even greeks used to follow Indian religion which used to one time give highest priority to Indra.

 

During that time there was no particular differentiation among buddhist, jains and hindu rishis and sadhus they were all grouped under Shramans eventhough their concepts were different. There were different thoughts and opinions but all of them grouped under ancient Indian Dharma.

[ombakth]

Also, during his invasion, Alexander wrote a letter to his mother in which he wrote that “You have given birth to one Alexander but when I came to India to conquest I found here many Alexanders and so I am finding it difficult to conquer them.”. This clearly shows that Alexander treated Indians with respect. During the invasion Alexander killed the opposite soldiers he did not killed innocent citizens, and killing an opponent soldier in war is not a crime, it is a duty of a warrior though it is not humanity to kill another person.

[Guest guest]

I have no idea where you get your information from, but it is not true.

 

Alexander's wartime activities have been amply described by the people who accompanied him and there is no doubt that he was a megalomaniac and a heartless killer. As one example, Curtius from the first century AD wrote that when Alexander was hurt in battle in Massaga he decimated the whole town and killed everyone. Similar stories of carnage were repeated in Osa and other places.

 

Alexander caused great destruction during his time to several countries. Why would you be interested in his policies on religion? There as nothing great about him.

 

When Timur the Lame invaded Delhi, he lined up Hindus, beheaded them and piled their head into mounds on every street. He killed over a hundred thousand hindus because they were idolators and it was his duty to his God to exterminate idolators. He also looted the place blind and carried his loot on hundreds of elephants back to his country.

 

Would you call Timur great? If not, then Alexander does not deserve that title either on the same grounds.

[ombakth]

Alexander and the Indian Wise Men [68] One of the strangest among all the exotic phenomena that Alexander's arm encountered in India was the ascetic life-style. The Indian holy men {Greek sources often refer indiscriminately to all Indian ascetics as "Brahmins." For convenience's sake we shall here do the same, although some of the ascetics in question may easily have been Buddhists or Jains. All of them, needless to say, were regarded as both holy and wise.} who engaged in intentional self-mortifications, and received respect and deference from their fellow-citizens as a consequence, had no real counterparts in the Greek world. It was no wonder that the Greeks displayed a vivid curiosity about such persons and made various (generally unsuccessful) attempts to comprehend their motives. The earliest attested conversation between a Greek and an Indian holy man was described in a book by Onesikritos, the pilot of Alexander's fleet. The book has long since disappeared, except for fragments; but the incident with the holy men passed into legend. According to Onesikritos, Alexander had heard reports that Indian holy men went about n‰ked, bore hardships cheerfully, and as a result enjoyed great social prestige. Apparently always interested in the customs of the peoples he conquered, Alexander despatched Onesikritos to make contact with some Indians of this type. Just outside the city of Takshasila he encountered fifteen holy men standing, sitting or lying in various positions which they maintained without moving until nightfall. He invited them to an audience with Alexander; but with one exception - the man whom the Greeks called Kalanos - they declined, saying that whoever wished to learn about their doctrines should come to them.

It is not easy to judge the extent to which Onesikritos understood the ascetics' remarks, or interpreted them in the light of his own preconceptions. Certainly his report shows some Cynic influence, which is [69] natural enough in a man who had studied the Cynic philosophy in Greece. He also may have wished to flatter Alexander. Thus he claims that the leader of the ascetics, named Dandamis, praised Alexander for his interest in philosophy - an interest he said he had never before observed in a warrior-king. Dandamis also asserted that such a king should persuade or force all his subjects to practice (ascetic) self-control. Onesikritos interpreted this statement, Cynic fashion, to mean that the Indian believed that the best doctrine was "that which removes pleasure and pain from the soul"] Obviously the Indian holy man impressed the Greeks favorably by his overt indifference to worldly power and goods. Ordered to appear before Alexander upon the promise of gifts if he complied but punishment if he did not, Dandamis replied that he desired nothing at all and did not fear the king's power. Alexander allegedly was not offended by this answer, but praised Dandamis' attitude and refrained from insisting that he come.

The historical reality of Onesikritos' meeting with the Indian sages is scarcely open to doubt. All the relevant sources agree that it occurred, including those which fail to mention any encounter between Dandamis and Alexander himself. Certainly the conversation must have been limited in scope: three translators were needed (perhaps from Greek to Persian, Persian to Sanskrit, Sanskrit into the local dialect); and Onesikritos says that none were persons of any particular learning. Conceivably he exaggerated his own role, which was apparently to prepare a meeting between Alexander and the ascetics rather than to hold a discourse himself. He may also have put words into Dandamis' mouth which the sage never uttered, especially his alleged words of praise for Alexander. However, this was probably more than just flattery; Onesikritos evidently had a genuine admiration for his king, precisely because he combined political with intellectual powers. Onesikritos' own philosophical interests appear in his tendency to regard the Indian ascetics as prime examples of the recommended Cynic mode of life - albeit the Cynics' motivations had nothing at all to do with the pursuit of holiness. Cynics investigated human life in order to identify the sources of happiness, which they believed required freeing oneself from dependence upon external events or goods. For this reason they concluded that the happy man was the one who restricted his wants to the barest necessities and suppressed all desires. The Cynics despised popular opinion and everything it valued: i.e. wealth, fame, learning, even ordinary bodily comfort. Quite aside from whatever the Indian ascetics may have told Onesikritos, their life-style in its externals conformed well to the Cynic ideal.

Onesikritos' explanation of the suicide of Kalanos also betrays Cynic preconceptions. This Indian ascetic, after accompanying Alexander's army from India to Persia, had himself burned to death upon a funeral [70] pyre at Susa in view of the whole army. Onesikritos gives as reason for this surprising act the fact that Kalanos had fallen ill, and that Indian holy men considered sickness a disgrace. But this is evidently an explanation after the fact, perhaps recalling the death by fire of Herakles, who was a Cynic hero, and anticipating the suicides of several prominent Cynics in later times. A generation after Kalanos' death the Seleukid ambassador to India, Megasthenes, sharply refuted Onesikritos' explanation of it. Modern scholarship tends to agree with Megasthenes that suicide was never a recommended form of death for Brahmins.

Whether or not Alexander ever talked to any Indian ascetics cannot be known for certain; but on the basis of extant sources this appears unlikely. The oldest accounts of the invasion of India fail to mention any such encounter. According to Onesikritos' report it would actually have been impossible because the Indian holy men "did not visit other people when invited," and Alexander presumably considered it beneath his royal dignity for him to seek them out. But Alexander's extraordinary exploits were clearly the stuff of which folk legends are made; and the story of his meeting with Indian wise men became one of the most popular embellishments upon the facts of his career. Numerous Hellenistic and medieval manuscripts describe a direct confrontation between Alexander and a group of Indian holy men, or between Alexander and Dandamis alone. The comparatively late appearance of all these stories in Hellenistic literature and their obvious dependence upon traditions dating back to Onesikritos and Megasthenes renders it unlikely that any of them is true. But only with the revival of Greek scholarship in the age of the Renaissance was this even suspected.

The origin of the legend is not difficult to discover. Presumably it was suggested by Onesikritos' experience with the Indian ascetics outside Takshasila, and by Megasthenes' description of the Brahmins' life-style written somewhat later. I n any case, the popularity of the story had little to do with any interest in India per se, or with any genuine impulse to record historical fact. The tale was intended to point a moral - in fact, several mutually contradictory morals.

What is probably the oldest account of Alexander's supposed conversation with Brahmins takes the form of a witty question-and-answer exchange. This version gives the impression of an entertaining anecdote rather than any attempt either to discover truth or to promote a point of view. The first manuscript in which it appears dates from about 100 B.C.; in the first century A.D. Plutarchos, the biographer of famous men, incorporated it into his Lives. In this story Alexander has taken prisoner ten Indian wise men who were guilty of persuading their king to revolt against the Greeks. Having heard of these men's ability in debate, he asks each of them one question, with the stipulation that anyone who fails to give a satisfactory answer will be put to death.

[71] Impressed by the Brahmins' sagacity, Alexander gives them all presents and lets them go free.

The second major version of Alexander's meeting with Brahmins exhibits a totally different spirit. Here the Indian sages no longer appear as clever riddle-solvers and worldly philosophers; rather they expound a serious ethical doctrine, austere and individualistic. Dandamis, the chief of the Brahmins, is made to utter opinions perfectly in accordance with the Cynic-Stoic doctrines, which then had attained widespread popularity in the Hellenistic world. The earliest known manuscript to embody this attitude is a papyrus of the 2nd century A. D., discovered in Cairo in 1950 and now in a library at Geneva. The same version is repeated in many subsequent manuscripts, most notably in a 4th-century treatise falsely ascribed to the classical historian Arrianos. The pattern for this form of the story was already established by Onesikritos, who had tended to treat the Indian ascetics as living examples of Cynic doctrine. However, Onesikritos never claimed that Alexander had interviewed any Brahmins himself. Probably a further model for the theme of king admiring philosopher was the popular (though probably spurious) tale of Alexander's confrontation with the Cynic philosopher Diogenes. According to this story, as Diogenes lay in the sun at Corinth Alexander offered him any favor he might desire. Diogenes repeatedly replied, "Stand out of my light!" Despite this rudeness, the king is said to have declared that if he were not Alexander, he would most like to be Diogenes.

In this Geneva papyrus version of the meeting, the Brahmin Dandamis appears as a sharp critic of the Greeks' mode of life. He advocates a [72] simple existence which ignores the refinements of civilization: thus the sage should be free from every desire which is not absolutely required by nature. He tells Alexander:

I have just as much of the earth as you and every other person; even if you gain all rivers, you cannot drink more than I. Therefore I have no fears, acquire no wounds and destroy no cities. I have just as much earth and water as you; altogether I possess everything. Learn this wisdom from me: wish for nothing, and everything is yours.

Among the defects of the Greeks' life-style Dandamis cites the wearing of clothes, meat-eating, drunkenness, carousing, avarice, wastefulness, war, and the subjugation of foreign peoples. He exhorts Alexander to renounce his bloody career and live in solitude like a sage. The king agrees as to the desirability of such a life. Unfortunately, he argues, his ties to his soldiers are too strong; for this reason he cannot renounce the world. Thereby even Alexander, the world-conqueror, accepts the moral superiority of asceticism.

This clearly enunciated contrast between the Greeks' and the Brahmins' way of life obviously lent support to Cynic principles, which in the late-Hellenistic period came to be combined with Stoic philosophy. In both style and content the text of the Geneva papyrus conforms closely to the Cynic-Stoic diatribe, which was a popular oratorical form widely practiced in the 2nd century A.D. and afterward. The conversation between Alexander and the Brahmins, though untrue historically, nonetheless has a certain plausibility. A genuine resemblance is undeniable between the outward forms of Brahmin asceticism, familiar to Hellenistic readers from the Alexander-historians and Megasthenes, and the Cynic-Stoic attitude toward life. On the other hand, if asceticism is defined as the renunciation of earthly satisfactions in the service of some nobler ideal - i.e. spiritual purity or closeness to God - then Cynicism and Stoicism obviously fail to qualify. Both are forms of eudaemonism (although Stoicism also stresses duty). Their prescription for happiness demands an austere life-style so that the adherent of these philosophies may be independent of external forces which can be neither predicted nor controlled.

One more version of the Alexander-Dandamis meeting, similar to that of the Geneva papyrus, appears in a popular Christian paraphrase of the 4th century which is attributed (probably wrongly) to the 2nd-century historian Arrianos. {Thus the author is called Pseudo-Arrianos} This account begins with a discourse by the Brahmins, who advocate a life-style that satisfies only the minimum physical needs; they attack riches, luxury, and the perversions of Greek life. Their [73] fellow-ascetic Kalanos (the same who later burned himself to death at Susa) becomes the target of harsh criticism for having joined the side of "riches" by adhering to Alexander's army. The Brahmins describe their mode of life: they live in forests and dress in leaves, sleep on bare ground, observe chastity and silence, abstain from meat and cooked food, nourish themselves only on fruits of the earth and drink only river water. They continually sing hymns, despise pleasures of the flesh, and fight an uninterrupterl war against the senses. The text then describes Onesikritos' visit to Dandamis, who refuses an audience with Alexander on the ground that a wise man desires nothing. Nature already furnishes him with everything he needs, says Dandamis. Threats are unable to change his mind: he does not fear death, which is merely liberation from the flesh. Thereupon Alexander goes personally to meet the holy man, who invites him to abandon the world and find tranquility in a life of renunciation. Again Alexander refuses, citing the responsibilities of his position. Nonetheless he admires the Brahmins and offers them presents, which they refuse. The Brahmins compliment Alexander on his love of wisdom; he in turn praises Dandamis' opinions. The message of the text is clear: Alexander approves of the ascetics' life-style. Only practical considerations prevent him from imitating it himself.

Pseudo-Arrianos' treatise is extant in numerous Greek and Latin manuscripts - sure witness to its wide dissemination. Without question its influence was closely linked to the growing popularity of Christian monasticism in the 4th century. The Brahmins' opinions as given in this text not only conform to Cynic-Stoic ideas, but also to the views of important Fathers of the Church. In fact, Pseudo-Arrianos became favorite reading in Christian monasteries both West and East - welcome support from pagans in defense of a Christian-ascetic mode of life.

Yet the same Alexander-Dandamis story was utilized also for precisely the opposite purpose, namely to deprecate the monastic ideal. In a Latin text known as the Collatio Alexandri et Dindimi, written apparently in the late 4th or early 5th century, the Brahmins with their ascetic philosophy do not win the argument. Actually the Collatio presupposes the prior existence of Pseudo-Arrianos, though it alters various details. This time Alexander and Dandamis do not communicate in person, but rather by letter (recalling the older tradition that they never met). The text's description of the Brahmins' mode of life closely follows Pseudo-Arrianos, as does some of the social criticism, e.g. the invectives against cupidity, false education, and theater-performances. However, Dandamis avoids attacking Alexander directly; instead he criticizes the customs of the Greeks in general. Moreover, Alexander has the last word. He gives his opinion that the Brahmins' life of renunciation is due not to free choice, but rather to the conditions of poverty prevailing in India (a surprisingly modern viewpoint). He then praises the riches of Greece and [74] the high morals of its citizens, apparently in the name of an Aristotelian ideal of moderation.

The sympathies of the Collatio's author clearly lay with the antimonastic movement of the 4th century, which represented a reaction against the extremes of Christian asceticism. Possibly some scepticism was also at work - the feeling that Indian Brahmins could not conceivably be superior to Christian monks in the practice of a specifically Christian virtue like asceticism. Nonetheless the Collatio's revision of the Alexander legend clearly failed to accord with prevailing sentiment, either in its own time or later. In the medieval period the text was again rewritten in a way that served to exalt Dandamis' philosophy of asceticism. In this revised version it became extremely popular in the Latin West, largely replacing Pseudo-Arrianos, and was copied and recopied many times over.

Thus the legend of Alexander and the Brahmins was made to exemplify a variety of changing attitudes in the Hellenistic world. Onesikritos' original account of the incident was colored by his Cynic preconceptions, but apparently represented a fairly straightforward narrative of what actually happened - namely, that Alexander did not himself converse with any Brahmins. But the theme of king versus philosopher offered obvious dramatic possibilities. Thus Plutarchos (first cent. A.D.) and his source (ca. 100 B.C.) permitted the wise men with their riddles to outwit the military man, who nonetheless proved magnanimous and set them free. The author of the Geneva papyrus (2nd cent. A.D.) took the story as a vehicle for Cynic-Stoic criticism of the Greeks' over-refined mode of life. Pseudo-Arrianos (4th cent.) used the legend to advocate the life-style of Christian monks, while the Collatio (late 4th-early 5th cent.) took the opposite approach of discrediting the ascetics' motives. In the end, nearly everyone apparently believed that Alexander had really met the Brahmins; and the legend contributed powerfully to the widespread Hellenistic view that philosophers of India possessed some special wisdom.

[ombakth]

Here is the list of Indian Ascetics with whom Alexander communicated.

 

Dandamis might be a Hindu Sadhu(Shraman) or Jain Acharya. Who refused to go with Alexander to Greece.

 

Kalanos whose pyre is at Susa. He also might be Hindu Sadhu(Shraman) or Jain Acharya. Who accepted to go to Greece with Alexander but unfortunately he fell ill due to which he had to end his life in Susa. He predicted that he will embrace Alexander even after his death this was a indication that even Alexander will die before he reaches Greece.

 

Sakaymuni. He might be Buddhist monk. Later on Alexander's army managed to take Sakaymuni to Greece.

[ombakth]

Descendants of Alexander who still pray to Mahadev(Shiv Shankar).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash

Kalash tribe, Black Kafirs of Hindukush, in north west Pakistan

Another descendants of Alexander in Malana in Himachal Pradesh</ST1:P

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malana

 

Malana in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:PValley in </ST1:P</st1:place> north-west <st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region>

<st1:country-region><st1:place></st1:place></st1:country-region>

http://sangha.net/messengers/alexander/questions.htm

Some of the Fair skinned south Indians the followers of skanda are descendants of Alexander and his greek army.

Alexander is said to have conceived a child with the Indian Queen Cleophis of Massaga. Who also was his wife, now in northern <st1:country-region><st1:place>Pakistan</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

There are other tales of Alexander fathering children on Indian princesses. The Malay annals have him fathering a son on Shahru’l-Bariyah, daughter of Raja Kida Hindi. The son is left behind in <st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region> as Alexander has long since gone.

[ombakth]

<FONT face="Times New Roman">In reality ancient greeks and Macedonians were not blonde. The blondes were from the slav race that settled in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comIt could be possible that Alexander was not blonde because he was a Macedonian and Slav were blonde who settled later on in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Macedonia</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Even in History channel show they had depicted Alexander with black hair.

Many Greeks are dark skinned and dark haired, some could even pass off for an Iranian or Indian. They've always had a thing for dying their hair blonde. The rest are a result of racial mixing when the germanic tribes invaded soon after the fall of the <st1:place>Roman empire</st1:place>.

One of the Alexander’s picture shows that he was not a blonde

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b7/AlexanderAttackingDarius.jpg/300px-AlexanderAttackingDarius.jpg

The region formerly known as Macedon is apart of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Ancient <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> consisted of a number of states (<st1:place>Ionia</st1:place>, <st1:City><st1:place>Athens</st1:place></st1:City>, <st1:place><st1:City>Macedon</st1:City>, <st1:country-region>Thrace</st1:country-region></st1:place>, <st1:City><st1:place>Sparta</st1:place></st1:City>, etc).

The founders of Ancient Greece were the Proto-Greeks, who were a pre-historic Indo-European tribe from <st1:place>Central Asia</st1:place>. They inherited their culture from the <st1:place>Middle East</st1:place> (<st1:country-region><st1:place>Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region> and <st1:place>Mesopotamia</st1:place>), not from <st1:place>Northern Europe</st1:place>.

The Greeks of that time were not "primarily" descended from Dorians, they were primarily descended from the Mycenean Greeks but the Dorians did influence their phenotypes to an extent. There isn't any evidence to prove that Dorians were Northern Europeans though.

I've also already posted the most ancient picture of Alexander there is, so I don't really see any need to explain it. As the saying goes, "a picture speaks louder than a thousand words". In other words, Alexander did not have blonde hair.

All those Greek scholars you mentioned were also from a few centuries after Alexander's death, and all their accounts (except for Diodorus) were written after Alexander's mosaic was created in <st1:City><st1:place>Pompeii</st1:place></st1:City> in the 1st century BC. The majority of modern historians have also agreed that the mosaic of Alexander is a faithful rendition of an original Hellenistic painting by Philoxenos in about 300 BC. As for Plutarch (and all those other Greek scholars), he never described Alexander's hair colour or eye colour in any of his accounts. He only described him as Xanthenein ("fair").

George Tsonis, a Greek-Canadian and a scholar of Greek, Roman and Persian history, the Greek word for Alexander's complexion is Xanthenein (fair). This description simply marks Alexander's complexion as being fairer than the other Greeks of his time. Yes, he was relatively fair, but not necessarily flaxen-blond in the Nordicist sense. From the Tufts University Lexicon Xanthenein is roughly translated as fair or a yellowish-brown color. A related term, Xanthizo, can also be to "make yellow" or "brown." No wonder there is confusion!

http://www.grecoreport.com/The_Alexander_Movie.htm

[ombakth]

Alexander was know as Skanda in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<a href=" /><st1:country-region><st1:place><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">India</B></st1:place></st1:country-region> and Sanskrit equivalent name of Alexander is Alekchendra <?xml:namespace prefix = o />

http://murugan.org/research/gopalapillai.htm

In Persian and Arabic and in Eastern languages generally, it is a well-known fact that Alexander is known under the name of Iskandar. And it is natural, if Indian languages have used his name, it might be a variant of its Asiatic form. What form could it normally assume in the ancient Sanskrit language? We are familiar, through Buddhist sources with the Indianization of the name of the Graeco-Bactrian King, Menander.[9] It occurs as Melinda. On the same analogy, Iskander regularly becomes ‘Iskanda.’ It is next an easy step to treat the initial ‘I’ as a case of prosthesis[10] as it obtains regularly in Prakrits, and arrive at the Sanskrit form ‘Skanda’. But a suspicion might lurk whether it is not a case of philological legerdemain. The name of Skanda is familiar in Sanskrit, in Indian languages and literature in general. But has it anything to do with Alexander the Great? Is it not an isolated case of accidental coincidence? It behoves us to examine it further.

If there are historical facts of the life and deeds of Alexander analogous to those of Skanda as we gather from the Indian literature and if there is corroboration of material details in the lives of [people?], we have to pause before we reject the hypothesis as idle, far-fetched fantasy.

At the outset, it must be borne in mind that many long centuries have sped since the days of Alexander of Macedon. A tangled mass of myths have grown around his name and eclipsed his true history. The folk-lore of centuries embodying the exploits of local heroes lies entwined over the garbled tales of Alexander, often distorting them beyond recognition. The life of Alexander by a Pseudo-Callisthenes gained unmerited currency and the brilliant hues of lurid fiction threw facts into the shade. We have, then, to extricate historical matter from the cobwebs of age-old legends.

Alexander was a prince, and Kumāra, which means a prince in Sanskrit, is a synonym of ‘Skanda.’ He was a warlord and leader of an army, and Senānī which means the leader of an army is again a name of Skanda. The lance was Alexander’s favourite weapon, and the weapon of Greek soldiers in general, and Skanda is called ‘Śakti-dhara’ (lance bearer). These are resemblances which may gain weight in the light of other evidences.

The fondest hope and proudest ambition of Philip of Macedon, Alexander’s father was to lead a Crusade against <st1:country-region><st1:place>Persia</st1:place></st1:country-region> after achieving a Pan-Hellenic Confederation. The memories of the incursion of the barbarian hordes from <st1:country-region><st1:place>Persia</st1:place></st1:country-region> who devastated the smiling lands of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> and subjugated her inhabitants, were still there in the minds of men. But Philip did not live long enough to see the fructification of his hopes. It was left to his son Alexander to fulfil the dreams of his father. The conquest of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Persia</st1:place></st1:country-region> and the establishment of a World Empire under Hellenic supremacy was his greatest ambition. The defeat of Darius was perhaps the greatest event of his life. And Skanda was born for the slaying of Tāraka, the asura, who menaced the peace of the world. Now Tāraka is but the sanskritization of Darius[11] ‘Dāra’ of Eastern legends (Dārayavus of the Persian Inscriptions).[12] Darius in Persian means preserver or protector, and Tāraka in Sanskrit also means preserver or protector. There is at once the similitude of sound and sense. Against the advice[13] of Parmenion, Alexander fired Xerxes’s palace at <st1:City><st1:place>Persepolis</st1:place></st1:City> as a sign to all <st1:place>Asia</st1:place> that Achaemenid rule had ended. And with the death of Darius and the complete conquest of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Persia</st1:place></st1:country-region>, Ahura Mazda, the God of Persia was naturally dethroned, and there appeared in his stead the new Aryan God from the West, Alexander. The sway of Ahura Mazda waned with the vanquishing of Achaemenid power. Alexander could legitimately be spoken of as having crushed Ahura Mazda, the guardian deity of the King of Persia. Skanda is referred to as Mahişāsuramardana. Now Mahişāsura appears to be the natural sanskritized form of Mazda-Ahura. In the oldest portions of the Avesta, this compound word does not occur in the form of Ahura Mazda.[14] It is Mazda Ahura. But the Sanskrit form is a much-disputed point. Various scholars of repute have essayed at length to arrive at the Sanskrit equivalent of Ahura Mazda. That Asura is the Sanskrit equivalent of Ahura is admitted by all. But controversy crops up, when we come to the equivalent of Mazda.

Dr D.B. Spooner connects it with Maya (Zoroastrian period of Indian History, T.R.A.S. 1915, p. 63-89). The regular Indian equivalent according to the Indologist Dr. Thomas and philologists like Dr. Brugmann (T.R.A.S 1915, p. 78) is ‘medha’. On the strength of a passage in the Rig Veda “Mahas putrāso asurasya vīrāh” (Rg. 10.10-12), it is pointed out that Mazda corresponds to Mahas – I venture to suggest that the Mahişāsura of the Puranas is but a Sanskrit rendering of the Mazda Ahura of the Persian, Mahişa being equivalent to Mazda.

But even in the Vedas, the word Mahişa is used in the sense of the great or the venerable. The Uņādi sūtras derive it by affixing ‘ţişac’ to mah, (avimahyoş ţişac – Unl.48). Jñānendra Sarasvati explains Mahişa as Mahān and quotes ‘turīyam dhāma mahişo vivakti’ ‘uta mātā mahişam anvavenat’[15] in support of his view; and Maz is admittedly the Avestic equivalent of Sanskrit ‘Mah’. Compare also the feminine form Mahişī which means a queen. The word Asura which originally possessed a good signification came to acquire a bad import, probably after the rift between the Persians and the Indo-Aryans.

Alexander married the beautiful princess Roxana the daughter of the King of Bactria; and Skanda is said to have married Senā or Deva Senā, daughter of Mrtyu according to Skanda Purāna[16] and daughter of Prajāpati according to the Mahā Bhārata.[17] Now it is a well-recognised symbol of language that proper names are contracted in actual usage, and the end often chosen to designate the whole. It was an accepted rule in Sanskrit[18], Kātyāyana says[19] “vināpi pratyayam pūrvottarapadayor lopo vācyah” and Patanjali adds “lopah pūrvapadasya ca”. Senā is but the latter part of Roxana ill-disguised in Sanskrit garb. And the form Devasenā is but a Sanskrit rendering with a view to preserving its sense, as Roxana is derived from the root ‘raz’ to ‘shine’ just as deva is from ‘div’ to ‘shine’.[20] Evidently the king of Bactria is denoted by the word Mŗtyu.

On his march into India, Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush mountain through the Koashan pass.[21] The Macedonians who served with Alexander called the mountain Kaukasos,[22] perhaps to flatter Alexander attributing to him the highest geographical adventure, the passage of the Caucasus. The name <st1:place>Hindu Kush</st1:place> is but a corrupted form of ‘Indicus Caucasus’. ‘Grancasus’ which means ‘white with snow’ is the original Scythic form of the word Caucasus.[23] Skanda is refereed to as ‘Krauñca dāraņa’, and Kraunca is admitted on all hands to be the name of a mountain pierced through by Skanda. Kalidasa refers to this mountain pass as a passage through which swans make their seasonal flights.[24] He but echoes the idea of the Mahābhārata which says ‘tena hamsāś ca gŗdhras’ ca merum gacchanti parvatam.’[25] Now Krauncha is a more proximate variant of the Grancasus than <st1:place>Kush</st1:place>’ is of <st1:place>Caucasus</st1:place>. And the identification of the Kraunch pass with the Koashan is natural and legitimate.

We next come to one of the most interesting facts of history. Chandra Gupta Maurya, the first Emperor of India, while yet a boy, had seen Alexander “the invincible splendid man from the West.” “Later on when he became a great King, Chandra Gupta worshipped Alexander among his Gods.”[26] It appears a curious fact that a Hindu King paid divine honours to a foreign prince whom he had himself beheld. But the whole world had recognised his divinity. Even the democratic cities of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> deified and adored him. Egyptian priest had acclaimed him as the son of God and God, and set their seal of assent on the flagrant faith in his divinity. Alexander is said to have visited the <st1:place><ST1:PlaceType>temple</ST1:PlaceType> of <ST1:PlaceName>Ammon Ra</ST1:PlaceName></st1:place> in the oasis of Siwa. He advanced into the mysterious inner sanctuary, and the image declared[27] “Come son of my loins, who loves me so that I give thee royalty of Ra, and the royalty of Horus. I give thee the valiance, I give thee to hold all countries and all religions under thy feet, I give thee to strike all the peoples united together with thy arm”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander

 

[ombakth]

Alexander on of the great personality chosen by God. Alexander was not a Gay.

Alexander was the only one person who was respected even by people whom he conquered. He was the only person who looked human as human and not as different race. He never differentiated among the greeks and non greeks. This is the reason why his own greek soldiers used to envy him because he used to mix greek blood with non greeks. This is the reason why they always use to conspire against him. A person like Alexander who looked upon all humans as equal cannot never be a gay or enuch lover. If you look as per the psycological aspect of a gay they are those people who cannot handle responsiblities they have characteristics of female in them such people can never be a conqueror but Alexander was indeed a conqueror. He might have given equal respect to a particular enuch probably he might have understood that this particular enuch was more loyal then his own greek soldiers due to which he use to award them. There is a general tendency of an individual when a particular person respect another person the one does who envy try to create false stories against the generous person. Sometimes in our day to day life we might have observed that if our boss favours a particular individual some of us try to spread rumors against that favoured person because of our own jealousy. This is the reason why his own soliders created the stories that Alexander had relationship with the enuch. Even the same with his friend Hephaestion the closet freind whom Alexander use to consider like brother was termed as lover of Alexander. Hephaestion was the only person whom Alexander trusted he was not jealous of Alexander's prosperity. He accompanied him since childhood and Alexander had not blood brother from his own mother i am not refering to step brother of Alexander because he was born much later when Alexander had already grown up, due to which he use to consider Hephaestion as his emotional brother and not as gay partner which was purposely spread by his greek soldiers who continously envyed Alexander's prosperity. It is not Alexander, not Hephaestion who had written the history it was Alexander's greek traitor soldiers who had writtern the History by misquoting the truth. They had Sabotaged his image by claiming him to be gay whereas Alexander was a straight person if he was not then he wouldn't have married women and that too he married a women belonging to different race and different social and economical background this showed that he showed no differences among the people made by God. There is one more reference where is also mentioned to have relationship with Euxenippus a young lad just because he respected this lad this doen't means that he had an affair with the young lad. Can you let me know how many Gays have such feeling of universal brotherhood and how many can achieve that none of them. By calling Alexander a gay you are defaming the Image of a Great and noble warrior. Can a gay tame a wild horse Bucephalu.

If father loves is son and a brother loved his brother more than other human who don't belong to their family then that does not means that all of them are gays.

Hephaestion had married Drypetis another daughter of Darius III.

Alexander marries Roxane daughter of Bactrian nobleman Oxyartes; married by Alexander and mother of his son Alexander IV, both killed ca. 310 by Cassander,

Alexander also marries Stateira II a persian princess daughter of daughter of Darius III (Codomannus ). It is also said that Alexander also married Stateira who was mother of Stateira II but this a confusion due to similar names of both mother and daughter. Alexander actually married Stateira II daughter of Stateira and not Stateira herself.

In the battle of Hydaspes Alexander's horse Bucephalus was wounded and died. Alexander had ridden Bucephalus into every one of his battles in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>Europe</st1:place> and <st1:place>Asia</st1:place>, so when it died he was grief-stricken. He founded a city which he named Buckephalia, in his horse's name. Luckily it is not be writtern that Alexander had sexual relations even with his horse Bucephalus.

Alexander even gave his enemy Darius a royal funeral. Such was great Alexander and not a Gay.

Alexander also married Parysatis, daughter of the last 'really great' Persian King Artaxerxes III Ochus

Alexander's mistress was Barsine who was his wife was daughter of Artabazus, the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, and widow of Memnon of Rhodes. He gave this widow a shelter which was consider taboo during those days of marrying a widow hence it was defamed by his own soldiers. Herakles was the son of Alexander through Barsine. He never even enjoyed the whore which his parents presented this show how great that person was who married only those who loved him and not raped any women by force nor was he invovled in any affairs with womens, mens or enuches. Note that Herakles was respected as a god in ancient greek. Hence I don't think that Alexander will name is illegimate son as Herakles and also Alexander was king so it was upto him whether he marries Barsine or not hence there is no reason why he would not marry her. Calling Barsine was just another conspiracy of his greek soldiers so that his son from Barsine is not considered as his heir to his throne.

Alexander is said to have conceived a child with the Indian Queen Cleophis of Massaga. Who also was his wife, now in northern <st1:country-region><st1:place>Pakistan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. People generally don't accept the fact that a woman can marry a foreigner or somebody who belonged to outcast due to which the claimed this queen to be his whore. By marrying this widow he showed how kind hearted he was.

Alexander spent thirtheen nights with Thalestris, the Queen of the legendary female Amazon warriors. This story is said to be a myth. But if it is true then he might have married her rather just enjoying with females like dogs. He always showed respect to all species belonging in this world.

His greek soldiers though accompanied him in war but they use to envy him. They always tried to conspire against him. So it is obivious that they have defamed his Image by giving all these are meaningless references. This is the reason why when he was poisoned he never appointed any heir to this thorne, due to which his generals fought among themselves, many died and only few survived and this way he took all the grudges against them. They betrayed him who brought glory to them, so he made them fight amongst each other.

Some of the historians claim that homosexaulity was a common thing in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region> at that time, this means that being a homosexual is not a cause of abuse in those days in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Even in one of the incident it was said that the greek soldiers themselves asked Alexander to kiss enuch, then why did his greek soldiers always pointed that he practised homosexuality. Only unusual things were always pointed out. That means Homosexuality was not a common thing in ancient Greek only few exceptional idiots used to practised it. Hence it was a cause of abuse. People used to call a person a homosexual if they wanted to abuse that person or show disrespect towards him or if they envy his fame or if they feel that the person whome they were accussing as gay use to give them less importance or if even non greeks are given equal importance which they cannot tolerate. This was the only reason just to degrade Alexander's selfrespect and self esteem, they used to call him a homosexual.

A homosexual idiot does has the ability to think of bringing different races people together these people are not creative they are just indulged in enjoying sex and nothing else whereas Alexander was ambitious he wanted that all human should be teated alike. Such was Great Alexander and not a Gay or a Bisexual. He prefered marrying better than lust.

Some people say that he destoryed Persian Temples and all. This was uterly nonsens. Note that these are those people who once ruled most of the countries they themselves have looted many egyptians and jewish treasures and when they their rule was overthrown they started making these claiming. Alexander rather than looting them built many hospitals and schools for these defeated people. If he wanted to enjoy all the loot then he would have stayed at one place in <st1:country-region><st1:place>persia</st1:place></st1:country-region> and enjoyed all the loot from Persian kingdom but instead of doing so he continued more towards east. Had any victorous king in past had ever helped any defeated people like what Alexander did? rather, they suppressed and exploited the defeated people and treated them as slaves. Alexander treated only corrupt people as salves and not the innocent ones. Alexander was really great.

Alexander integrated foreigners (non-Macedonians, non-Greeks) into his army and administration, leading some scholars to credit him with a "policy of fusion." He encouraged marriage between his army and foreigners, and practiced it himself.

Also, note that Alexander was the first person to visualize all human beings of different races and different tongue under one culture rather then creating a religion he believed in a common culture. He visioned to bring all people under one roof and to some extent he was sucessful such was that great individual whom we proudly call as Alexander the Great. According to Droysen, the Hellenistic civilization was a fusion of Greek and Middle-Eastern culture that eventually gave Christianity the opportunity to flourish. The main cultural centers expanded from mainland <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>, to Pergamon, <st1:place>Rhodes</st1:place>, <st1:City><st1:place>Antioch</st1:place></st1:City> and <st1:City><st1:place>Alexandria</st1:place></st1:City>.

Hellenistic civilization:- Is not a religion nor entirely Greek Culture. It was the mixture of all different cultures on the world known at that time. It does not honours Homosexuality, rapeist or sex maniacs, but it was all about noble, brave and respectful idea. Alexander did not had any mistress because if that was the case then he would'nt have married the persian princess or a low caste lady. It shows that he respected females and he was not a sex maniac or a desperate human being. He gave respect even to his enemies. He was a true Gentleman.

Hellenistic culture is just like 'Bahai faith" in the modern world which is formed by incorporating good things and eradicating evil concepts and practices of all the major and minor religions currently practised in this world.

It was said that when he was about to conquer <st1:City><st1:place>Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:City> he was treated with respect by Jews people due to which he humble respected them and did'nt even tried to occupy <st1:City><st1:place>Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:City>. This proves that he would'nt have disrespected Persians Gods or their temple. He was not a dacoit. Whereas the other kingdom that has ruled <st1:City><st1:place>Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:City> has always tried to exploit it.

A GAY cannot be a brave and Kindhearted like Alexander the Great. Gays are often womenish kind of people who are weakhearted.

So brothers if anyone of you is a Brilliant Writer. Could you please rewrite Alexander's Biography in your own words and clear out his Image?

Also, if possible try to create a movie on him glorifying his Image? Don't show that he had mistresses and he was a homosexual or bisexaul, rather show that he had many wives and he respected all of them. Showing Brotherly love between Alexander and his friend Hephaestion and love of a father towards his son Euxenippus? And giving equal respect to all humans even the enuch by promoting him better position in his goverment and not mating with a enuch.

Also, there should be disclaimer in this new movie that this movie is an attack on oliver stone's Alexander movie for depicting Alexander as homosexual.

The following are the quotes of some websites which was giving reviews on the film of Oliver Stone's Alexander mov:-

"Plutarch penned in his Moralia. De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute [Morals. About the Virtue or Fortune of Alexander the Great], "States which never got to know Alexander were as though they had never seen the light of the sun" and "If one were to judge from what Alexander taught and did, he would verify that he was a philosopher."

The mighty Romans were the first people to name Alexander "Great." They deified him and not only considered him a role model, but also embraced his life, as well as the arts and sciences that he spread in the East. It was through the Romans that Greek civilization and culture were transferred and established in the West. Thus western civilization was paved and took roots in the western world. Chateaubriand wrote "If someone was compared to a god, that was Alexander." The preceding quotation is not a casual comment.

Alexander's speech at Opis in 324 BC, otherwise known as Alexander's Oath, given about one year before his death in the presence of 9,000 Greek and Asian officers, has become the beacon of state leaders and international organizations in their route toward the third millennium. The main points which he made in this speech are as follows:

• Now that the wars are over, I wish you to find happiness through peace.

• May all mortals live from now on in harmony, as one nation, for the sake of common prosperity.

• Consider the world as your country, with common laws, governed by men of merit, regardless of race.

• I do not distinguish between Greeks and barbarians, as do the narrow-minded.

• I am not interested in the country or race of origin of people.

• I only distinguish people according to their virtues.

• To me every virtuous foreigner is Greek and each non-virtuous Greek is worse than a barbarian.

• If you are ever faced with differences, do not resort to arms, but resolve them peacefully. If need be, I can act as your arbitrator.

• God should not be viewed as an authoritarian ruler, but as our common father.

• As for myself, I consider all persons, black or white, as equals.

• I wish you to be my partners and not just members of our commonwealth.

• As far as I am able, I shall see to it that all my promises come true.

• Regard this oath as a symbol of love.

The oath at Opis conveys a message, which originated in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Macedonia</st1:place></st1:country-region> and has not been emphasized enough. The message, emanating from Alexander's native land, was not to conquer nations or to acquire riches, or even to satisfy rivalrous passions between nations, but to unite all people with the bonds of peace, amalgamation and mutual communication.

Alexander's comments to Diogenes during their brief encounter in Corinth, his policy during his expedition to the East, culminating with the oath at Opis and the historic statement, recorded by Diodorus, that the "enemies were required by the conqueror to be happy," all attest to the fact that Alexander's ambition was to civilize and not to conquer. Professor Panagiotis Kanellopoulos, who is one of the most respected, well-read and broadly accepted statesmen of <st1:country-region><st1:place>Greece</st1:place></st1:country-region>, writes that Alexander severely penalized those who abused the public treasury or ill-treated the citizens of his commonwealth. Thus, knowledgeable sources and scholars inform us that the young king respected the public treasury while remaining a philanthropist.

Alexander never followed Aristotle's advice that he should treat the Greeks differently than the non-Greeks. By respecting the traditions of the people he conquered, eliminating discrimination and prejudice between conquerors and conquered, Alexander the Great elevated the peoples he conquered from an economic, social and political point of view to a higher echelon. That is the reason why Alexander, still today, is loved and respected by a multitude of nations in the East and West and why various legends of different nationalities claim Alexander as their own. Montesquieu, the great French political philosopher, wrote, "When Alexander was gone, nations became orphans."

When Alexander was leaving <st1:country-region><st1:place>Macedonia</st1:place></st1:country-region> to undertake his expedition against the Persians, he distributed his property and belongings. Alexander was asked what he would keep for himself and his answer was that he would only keep "hope."

Jews throughout the centuries have been using the name Alexander. This has been in accordance with their high priest's decision that "Alexander's name should remain in eternity." The decision was taken because, when Alexander visited <st1:City><st1:place>Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:City>, her exhibited respect towards the high priest and for the Jewish religious worship. It is said that when the Jews of Jerusalem offered Alexander gold and silver, he refused to accept them; the Jewish high priest told Alexander: "We serve only one God who created Heaven and Earth and all visible and invisible things that no human being is able to explain." To this Alexander replied, "As worthy worshippers of the true God, be in peace, for your God is my God and my peace is your peace. I shall not treat you any different from the other nations, since you serve the living God."

Alexander's behavior toward the relatives of Persian King Darius whom he had captured (his mother, wife and children), was admired by all for the respect that he showed to these royal family members. He did not treat the family of his opponent as a conqueror and as a mighty king would treat enslaved subjects. Darius' mother came to love Alexander as her own son, because in treating her with respect, the purity of his youth became evident to her. She refused to abandon him when there was a plot that gave her the opportunity to escape. After Alexander passed away, she went on a hunger fast for five days and committed suicide, as Kanellopoulos writes.

It is not by chance that Mohammed the Prophet refers in the Koran to the double-horned King (Alexander) as a prophet who has the ability to punish those committing injuries against others and to reward the individuals who carry out good deeds.Buddhists consider Alexander equal to God.

St. Nectarios, in his book, The Ecumenical Synods, writes "Hellenism spread by Alexander paved the way for Christianity by Emperor Constantine the Great."

St. Vassilios the Great does not by chance present Alexander the Great as a role model of self-discipline to young people.

Alexander is honored and will be honored and respected forever by the great religions of the world. [Hollywood-style] scripts, therefore, and other attempts to blemish his personality, are ineffective. Regardless of what has been mentioned above, common sense negates allegations about Alexander's homosexuality or drinking habits. It would have been impossible for Alexander to lead his army in such successful military campaigns, achieved by no one preceding or following him, if these attributes were true.

Film scripts which attempt to portray Alexander the Great as a homosexual are of poor taste and lack seriousness. Plutarch stated in his Moralia. De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute [Morals. About the Virtue or Fortune of Alexander the Great]: "Let us bring up the deeds of those who have generally been identified as philosophers and let us compare their deeds with the deeds of Alexander. Philoxenus, his coast guard commander, wrote to Alexander that he found in <st1:place>Ionia</st1:place> a very handsome boy, one that could be compared to none other in beauty, and that if Alexander wanted the boy, he could send the youth to him. The king replied to him bitterly and in a scolding fashion: 'Horrible man, have you known me up to now guilty of such crimes? How dare you flatter me with such vile pleasures?'"

In this age of loss of direction and human dignity, we search for great men to guide and inspire our youth and to elevate the quality of life. Falsification and degradation of the personalities and statuses of long established heroes of history for political or materialistic gains and minimization of their positive effectiveness is not only offensive to every civilized human being, but is also a crime against humanity itself. In the case of Alexander the Great, nothing undertaken by those who now wish to turn historical facts around, in order to try and belittle him or tarnish his fame with unfounded claims, can affect his grandeur and place in [world] history."

Apart from legends, today the fame of a historical figure is also determined by his archaeological relics. Alexander fell an easy prey to unwary critics mainly due to two factors; his image was tarnished by a vilification campaign launched by the Generals,1 who poisoned him, and secondly there appears to be very little archeological evidence of his historic voyage2. Sir Mortimer Wheeler wrote with a touch of sorrow,

The abundance of contradictory reports in Alexander's history is partly due to falsification by the Generals. The shadows of Mazaeus and Orontobates do not belittle the greatness of Alexander which has been acknowledged through the ages. However, he also had his share of human weaknesses, but although much has been written about his so-called homosexual relation with Hephaestion by Mary Renault and others, this does not seem to be based on hard evidence. His frenzy after the death of Hephaestion

may be partly due to fear for his own life and partly because Hephaestion alone shared his religious convictions. Alexander's role in Philip's death is far from clear and his slaying of Clitus and his treatment of Callisthenes were avoidable yet not inhuman acts. However, the breach with his compatriots may have been due to his re-interpret- ation of Hellenic religion.

It was also said that "Sacred Band of Thebes" the group of homosexual idiots was destroyed by Alexander the Great this proves that Alexander himself hated such type of homosexual acts. Alexander vanquish such type of groups who practice homosexuality.

Please check these link:-

http://www.geocities.com/ranajitda/

http://sangha.net/messengers/alexander/questions.htm

Please read the following Article too:-

"Who's Who & What Happened When? November 23, 2004

by Mark Rose

A quick guide to the main characters in Alexander's life, and a basic chronology

We don't know how Oliver Stone is going to slice and dice history in his film, but the real story is complicated enough in terms of people, events, and dates. To help you navigate the story, here is ARCHAEOLOGY's guide to the most important characters and outline of the chronology of Alexander's life."

http://www.archaeology.org/online/f...er/whoswho.html

[Guest guest]

 

We next come to one of the most interesting facts of history. Chandra Gupta Maurya, the first Emperor of India, while yet a boy, had seen Alexander “the invincible splendid man from the West.” “Later on when he became a great King, Chandra Gupta worshipped Alexander among his Gods.”

 

 

I don't know about that, Chandragupta fought and defeated the armies Alexander left in India and became the first emperor of India. As for religion, it is well known that Chandragupta became a Jain.

[ombakth]

In those days there was nothing called religion. People used to follow philosophies of great teachers. Jainism, Buddhism was also like a philosopies.

 

Chandragupt Maurya followed (so called Conversion) Jainism at his old age. Before that he used to follow even other cultures that were present in those days.

 

Like Chandragupt Maurya became follower of Jainism whereas Ashoka Maurya became the follower of Buddhism so that means either they used to consider Jainism, Buddhism and Hindu customs just as means to attain peace. So each one followed what best suited for them.

 

Even Ashoka Maurya(Piodasses) in his eddicts just mentioned about Dharma he did not mentioned just Buddhist Dharma. This clearly shows that they used to consider all Jainism, Buddhism and ancient Hindu Culture as the part of single ancient Indian Dharma.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

 

 

Chandragupta defeated Seleucus I Nicator, even married daughter of Seleucus I Nicator,

 

Jainism & death

Towards the end of his life, it is believed that Chandragupta gave up his throne and became an ascetic under the Jain saint Bhadrabahu Swami, ending his days in self-starvation at Shravanabelagola, in present day Karnataka. A small temple marks the cave (called Bhadrabahu Cave) where he died

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya

 

 

Reconquest of the Northwest

Chandragupta turned his attention to Northwestern India (modern Pakistan), where he fought the satrapies (described as "prefects" in classical Western sources) left in place by Alexander (Justin), and assassinated two of his governors, Nicanor and Philip.The satrapies he fought may have included Eudemus, ruler in western Punjab until his departure in 317 BCE; Peithon, son of Agenor, ruler of the Greek colonies along the Indus until his departure for Babylon in 316 BCE. The Roman historian Justin described how Sandrocottus (Greek version of Chandragupta's name) conquered the northwest:

 

Also, I have mentioned that he used to worship, worship just does not means Worshiping God or offering prayers. It could be idolizing, I mean to say for e.g. in todays world there are many great actors you can see that they have many fans who idolize them so in similar manner Chandragupta Maurya might be idolizing Alexander the great. Not just Chandragupta Maurya, there were many conqueror after Alexander The Great who idolize him, all of them wanted to become Alexander The Great. Even in todays generation Alexander is not just a monarch but a symbol of achievmen. He protrays "A will to win inspite of all odds and never to loose hope".