Was Alexander the Great worse then Hitler

[Lord Winter]

This can of blurs the line between backroom and the monestrary. It's discussing history but is fairly controversial. So Mods feel free to move this if you want.

The question of the thread was spawned from this podcast show. So what do Orgahs think does the host have a case?

Sorry I couldn't find a transcript.

[Csargo]

:/ ...

[Marshal Murat]

Hitler was bad.
Alexander was good.
Based on their contemporaries.

Alexander was, lenient? He didn't smash cities at random, burning and looting (Gauls). Alexander killed thousands when it was the way to resolve problems.

Now we can talk, discuss, and not have to resort so such widespread violence.

[AntiochusIII]

Alexander the Great was a man of his time...a warlord like any other. He sought power; killing was one of the means to it.

Hitler's genocide is ideologically driven.

A hardcore pacifist can conceivably make a case from his or her viewpoint that Alexander is bad -- and any powerful rulers who engage in expansive wars are also bad. But in comparison to Hitler? What's that you* are smoking?

*podcast

[PanzerJaeger]

Alexander the Great was a man of his time...a warlord like any other. He sought power; killing was one of the means to it.

Hitler was not? Compared to most of his contemporaries, he wasn't much different.

Hitler was no different than most of the leaders that came before him, including Alex the Great and David of Israel - using war and extermination to further his goals. Its funny, most Jews and Christians do not even know that genocide is rampant throughout the Old Testament.

Hitler's problems are A) he lost and B) he lost at a time when much of the world was embracing ideas of compassion, human rights, ect; which made him not just a national leader who lost a war, but a "monster".

Ironically, most in the Western World who consider Hitler pure evil embrace and glorify their own rather sketchy past, whether it be the American cowboy, the British colonial soldier, or Napoleon.

[Laman]

One can't seriously say anyone was worse then Hitler. For Alexander to get as bad as Hitler he would have had some flimsy ideological reason and then proceeded to wipe out everyone from for example Eordaia, even though they were not enemies.

[Ironside]

Hitler was not? Compared to most of his contemporaries, he wasn't much different.

Hitler was no different than most of the leaders that came before him, including Alex the Great and David of Israel - using war and extermination to further his goals. Its funny, most Jews and Christians do not even know that genocide is rampant throughout the Old Testament.

Hitler's problems are A) he lost and B) he lost at a time when much of the world was embracing ideas of compassion, human rights, ect; which made him not just a national leader who lost a war, but a "monster".

Ironically, most in the Western World who consider Hitler pure evil embrace and glorify their own rather sketchy past, whether it be the American cowboy, the British colonial soldier, or Napoleon.

To be fair to Hitler, he would have been described as very evil in any lifetime, because genocide usually streched only to the male population (the females and children became slaves) and had in most cases a strategical reason ("oppose me and die" or "we want your land").

In Hitler's case it was also draining resources and the treatment of the population on the Eastern front did probably cost him the war (according to German intelligence, winning the minds of the people, that wasn't hard due to the hatred to Stalin, was the recommended action for victory. It would likely have created liberation movements that would have gone to war against Stalin).

[Meneldil]

Hitler was not? Compared to most of his contemporaries, he wasn't much different.

Hitler was no different than most of the leaders that came before him, including Alex the Great and David of Israel - using war and extermination to further his goals. Its funny, most Jews and Christians do not even know that genocide is rampant throughout the Old Testament.

Hitler's problems are A) he lost and B) he lost at a time when much of the world was embracing ideas of compassion, human rights, ect; which made him not just a national leader who lost a war, but a "monster".

Ironically, most in the Western World who consider Hitler pure evil embrace and glorify their own rather sketchy past, whether it be the American cowboy, the British colonial soldier, or Napoleon.

Yeah, 'cause Alexander, Caesar, Chingiz Khan or Napoleon deported civilians to death camps, whose main aim was to exterminate a population depending of its ethnicity, sexual or political orientation.
Or wait, they did not.

Even the worst conquerors, like Timur the Lame, are just kiddos if compared to Hitler. Yeah, some of them burnt down cities, slaughtered whole lot of innocent people*, but no one except Hitler did it for such silly reasons, and in such a crual way, period.
Timur the Lame killed thousands of people in a brutal way, because they bothered him and stood on his way. Hitler killed millions of people just because he thought they had no right to exist.

Comparing Napoleon, Alexander or whoever else to Hitler and saying "they're all the same, Hitler is just a poor guy, who lost a right war" is just either blatant revisionism, or the result of someone's lack of knowledge about Hitler, Napoleon and Alexander.

*Furthermore, those who brunt down whole cities and destroyed empires, are seen as particularly evil, even though they might have done a lot of positive things. This is quite obvious in Chingiz Khan's case, who is still seen as teh evil dude, even though he was one of the greatest political leader ever.

Oh, and FYI, ideas such as human rights and compassion were not created nor embrassed during the 20th century.

[AntiochusIII]

Hitler was not? Compared to most of his contemporaries, he wasn't much different.

Hitler was no different than most of the leaders that came before him, including Alex the Great and David of Israel - using war and extermination to further his goals. Its funny, most Jews and Christians do not even know that genocide is rampant throughout the Old Testament.

Did you miss the point where his genocide is done for ideological reasons?

If you're a Jew, or a Gypsy, or a frickin' homosexual, no matter how much of an asset you are to the Great Nation, you're scumbag, sub-human, and therefore dead.

The warlords don't usually work that way. Serve them and they let you live, may be even get a share of the booty...

The less bloodthirsty ones would only require that you don't get in their way to live and may be even prosper. A far less "evil" sentiment compare to killing you because you are you.

I'm not even putting in the relative morality of each period into this consideration...and by all means that's a valid one to judge the performance of historical leaders.

Hitler's problems are A) he lost and B) he lost at a time when much of the world was embracing ideas of compassion, human rights, ect; which made him not just a national leader who lost a war, but a "monster".

Ironically, most in the Western World who consider Hitler pure evil embrace and glorify their own rather sketchy past, whether it be the American cowboy, the British colonial soldier, or Napoleon.

Revisionism. If you're going to admire something in the German past please choose a topic more appealing than the unrecognized glory of Herr Hitler. They have a lot of things to be proud about you know.

Hitler's problem was not because he lost. Stalin won and won big and everyone with half a sense in 2007 don't go around praising Uncle Joe.

[Geoffrey S]

Hitler was not? Compared to most of his contemporaries, he wasn't much different.

...is the phrase that stood out the most. It's as if you're defending Hitler's goals by saying that people like Mao and Staling were worse. Let alone that your posts leave it ambiguous whether you oppose Hitlers goal of extermination of Jews while making clear you disagree with his approach thereof.

Indeed, he was a man that understood what it took to create and maintain a far reaching empire during that time that would last beyond the battlefield victories. None of that disputes what I said however, but thanks for the mini-bio.

'None of that disputes what I said'? You explicitely stated that he aimed to create a world order with the Greek culture dominating other peoples, while the things I listed clearly show that not only was that not his goal, but that in many cases he considered the Persians and their culture at the very least equal to Greeks and in certain cases as superior. That certainly does dispute what you said.

[InsaneApache]

Was Hitler worse then Alexander the Great

yes

[Suraknar]

This can of blurs the line between backroom and the monestrary. It's discussing history but is fairly controversial. So Mods feel free to move this if you want.

The question of the thread was spawned from this podcast show. So what do Orgahs think does the host have a case?

Sorry I couldn't find a transcript.

Well, I heard the podcast, and I dont think that the host is even trying to make a case about Alexander. His case is about Hitler, and how will we be viewing Hitler 2500 years from now. Will we be viewing him like we do alexander the great or differently.

That is it that is all.

[The Stranger]

And I think it's a good question to ask yourself, although I doubt we will see him as an Alexander, unless times change radically, and I think they will, so I have to change me oppinion, I think not much will change in the way we will view hitler, some people see and will see him as some kind of Alexander (A great leader) and some see and will see him as some kind of monster.

As someone already said before, in many regions in the east Alexander is considered evil, so its not that Alexander is unanimously considered a good guy...

To answer the question of the thread, I don't see Alexander as a worse person than Hitler, he might have been though. But I definitly don't think that his legacy to the world is a worse one than that of Hitler. His actions were definitly cruel at times, be it normal in that time or not. for I doubt, the people he did it to, would be thinking, hey this is normal, what is Iksander a good guy...

And I also agree with the people that say that Hitler was a man of his time, they were all brilliant (in the way they managed to arouse the people) nutcases. Hitler became a lunatic, Stalin became a lunatic, Mao became a lunatic, Churchill might not have done something compareble evil, but he wasn't the most sane person... I could continue that list till it becomes a mile long... There is a easy explanation, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It not only corrupts your judgement but also you entirely.

[Bijo]

The question of the thread was spawned from this podcast show. So what do Orgahs think does the host have a case?

Ugh: it was terrible to listen to. I planned to check it but I just stopped it after some minutes. The way the guy talks is not so... well, how should one call it? You know what I mean.

[Samurai Waki]

if indeed Alexander killed many many people, in his mind's eye he may have had a better case for racial extermination (even though all fingers point to the opposite intention) than Hitler ever had. The Persians wanted Greece to be gone...period...done. I'm sure the Greeks felt quite the same about the Persians. Hitler was racially motivated because he was well... insane; There was surely already a rising nationalistic sentiment against Jews in Austria and Germany before Hitler gave rise to the 3rd Reich, Jews were already distrusted before Hitler was born, and the fact that his step father was no fan (and beat him constantly... and since he didn't know why exactly he came to believe it may have been because his "Real" father may have been a Jew), he came to loathe the thought that his mother may have conceived him with a Jewish man. His loathe turned to Hatred, His Hatred for himself gave way to Hatred For all Jews, and well the rest is History...

Hitler was not evil (believe me this is no way supportive of his actions) as much of my Family is Jewish and I lament the torture and ultimate death of much of my unknown relatives and ancestors at his vile hands). But Hitler was as much a product of himself as the Society around him, he was the hand that launched a thousand ships, but not the man who held the gun, or pulled the lever releasing a plume of Arsenic Gas, or the man who shoveled the living, crying, dead, or dying into the Kilns that fed the Monstrous War Machine. Hitler wasn't a man apart, Hitler was Germany at that time, and he fed the frustrated masses a manifesto that was tangible; Hope. As Misguided as it was. It was still Hope to many, and the few who refused to believe this was the answer were too few and eerily too silent.

So going back to the original question: Was Alexander worse than Hitler?

The Answer is obvious no; not now... not ever.

Was Hitler more evil than Alexander? No. They are incomparable; separated too far in time and in thought. Yet the situations both men faced were surprisingly similar; except Hitler was no Alexander.

Wakizashi.

[Whacker]

Methinks there are a number of ways to look at and consider this topic.

Personally, I think Hitler was far worse because he caused certain people to die in the concentration and death camps based on their ethnicity and/or some other kind of 'undesirable' trait. Alexander to my knowledge had nothing like death camps. If anything, Alexander seemed to have been something of a xenophile, as evidence of contemporary and near-contemporary surviving works about his life. I just read earlier that he had created a will which was in the process of being executed after his death by Craterus, in which large populations of people were to be transplanted throughout his empire in order to facilitate "oneness" and culture integration and exchange.

In terms of empire building, it's plainly obvious they both wanted to do so. Hitler believed that the Germans were a superior people and destined to carve out a large empire of their own, Alexander seemed to have thought the same, though it has not been clear to me that he personally believed in the 'supremacy' of the Greek people.

In short, Alexander did indeed cause the slaughter of thousands, but it was done on those who resisted his rule, or attempts to rule. It wasn't directed at any individuals based on their ethnicity, background, or individual characteristics. Hitler is of course the opposite. Further, and I do not have any data to support this, it would seem that the number of deaths Alexander caused were far, far less than Hitler, both absolutely and relatively. Not that I approve of wholesale slaughter of anyone, but in answer to the OP "Was Alexander the Great worse than Hitler?", my answer is a definite No.



Edit - I would also like add this, for the sake of argument. I think Stalin was just as bad as, if not worse than Hitler, in terms of being a tyrannical genocidal maniac.

[Didz]

I would say any dictator is as bad as any other, you can't judge them by their actions as their actions are merely the product of the underlying ego that determined their initial self-belief. Cromwell for example masssacred thousands of Catholic's in Ireland. Does that make him any better or worse than Hilter, of course not, its a matter of opportunity that determines the difference between them not their underlying mental state.

[The Stranger]

dictators arent neccesarily bad...

[Didz]

dictators arent neccesarily bad...

That must surely be a matter of personal judgement.

No dictator is 'bad' for everyone, but by implication every dictator will be bad for someone. Hitler was certainly not 'bad' for every German, and was in fact much loved by the majority of the population. Cromwell is still considered to be a great English hero, and Napoleon a French one.

However, dictatorship by implication is going to be bad for someone simply because one person having total power and no accountability is bound to result in egocentric policies based upon that persons bigotry. It is the most efficient form of government but also the most likely to be abused.