alexander the great was poisoned?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Iskander, on the other hand, is the stuff with which mothers scare children in Middle Eastern nations. He is a devil, a demon in their mythology/stories. A man of unbridled ambition and greed, a shameless looter, rapist, vandalist, and destroyer. A true embodiment of youth gone wild, of a man corrupted by sin, an unbalanced and dangerously mad figure.

Well, Alexander was a conquerer, the greatest of all times, and a certain ambivalence is the nature of all conquest - one side gets the fame and the other one the grief.

I have often thought of what would have happened if the Great had stopped in Babylon, leaving Iran alone. There would have been a truly different empire. A cohesive Makedonian empire that would have been much stronger than the successor states. But knowing where to stop requires great wisdom, and going to the extremes in every aspect was a central trait of Alexander's character. If he had stopped, he would not have been the Great as the greatest of all times, just a mere Frederick II. Who's great enough in my opinion, and more successful in the long run, but with just that Alexander could have never been satisfied. He wanted everything, and yes in that regard his death was a relieve. Empires take time, the slower they grow, the longer they last.

[antisocialmunky]

Perhaps Alexander became ill and then everyone decided to poison him so it would just look like he got sick and died.

[The General]

Empires take time, the slower they grow, the longer they last.

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

Hmm, this requires an unambiguous definition of "continuity". What is it? late Byzantine Empire and Roman Republic differed far too greatly. What defines a continuing institution? One may say the government, the fact that the Byzantine considered themselves Romans. Hence the name of Byzantium - Nova Roma. Constantinople was the unofficial, popular name.

That is splendid, but what shall we make of Charlemagne's Empire? Or that of Otto I? What is the difference between Holy Roman Empire and that of the Byzantines? Both considered themselves as the continuation of Rome.

Or if you truly wish to make a farcical argument, then why not consider the Tsardom of Russia? After all, Ivan III, the Grand Duke of Muscovy married Sophia Paleologue. And she was the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor, Konstantinos XI Palaiologo. This and the fact that Moskva was the only remaining major (the Southern Slavs in the Balkans were subdued by the Ottomans) Eastern Orthodox capital made Kremlin adopt the "Third Rome" doctrine. Basically, Russia was the heir of Rome, even though it was in a rather more religious context. "Tsar" entered the Russian usage, derived from "Caesar".

Next, Mehmed II, the vanquisher of the Byzantines, was likewise not immune to self-flattery. After his momentous conquest, he self-styled himself as a "Caesar" (Kyiser) of the Romans (Rum). Evidence aplenty exists that he did aim to conquer Rome itself, but then he was killed. It is regrettable that the subsequent Sultans did not care for the significance of their past conquest as much, or to be accurate, at all.

All throughout history numerous figures and nations have claimed themselves the continuation of Rome, so a definition is needed. Otherwise, Russia has not too shabby of a claim that it was the third manifestation, third continuation of the fabled Roman Empire. That is obviously a nationalistic, pompous pretence, but without a valid definition of what constitutes as "continuation of an empire", the claim is as good as any.

[Atraphoenix]

Next, Mehmed II, the vanquisher of the Byzantines, was likewise not immune to self-flattery. After his momentous conquest, he self-styled himself as a "Caesar" (Kyiser) of the Romans (Rum). Evidence aplenty exists that he did aim to conquer Rome itself, but then he was killed. It is regrettable that the subsequent Sultans did not care for the significance of their past conquest as much, or to be accurate, at all.

.

-Yes, he claimed.
-His death is still under discussion between historian but there is a tendency on assassination.
-Rome? Italy was lucky when Gedik Ahmed Pasha decided to conquer Otranto not the Rome itself.
After Otranto fell, Turks attacked Vieste, Lecce, Taranto and Brindisi even some historians claims plans were made to evacuate Rome... His death ceased reinforcements to Otranto.
So it is quite logical he was assassinated by poison like Alexander because ; if I were in his shoes I would march to Rome.
What if he conquered Rome and Europe accepted him as Roman Emperor?
I am sure he would not have less influence than Holy Roman Emperors...
Rome has already passed her prestige that even un-romans desired to have that title.

Before Rome, Greeks Successors claimed themselves as the true successor of Alexander.
They were so serious that they even killed his own son and mother as they see them a threat on their claims.
Just powerism, mates... nothing else..

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What if he conquered Rome and Europe accepted him as Roman Emperor?
I am sure he would not have less influence than Holy Roman Emperors...

There's no way they could have accepted a muslim as a kind of inheritor to Rome. No.

[moonburn]

if he was like napoleon fallowing alexander´s teachings he would have "officially" converted to christianity to bring peace

or if we wanna put it in other terms the muslims of those times had far greater humanity then the christians so for the peasents they would probably accept it fairly well since their lifes would somewhat improve (being a slave in the ottoman empire was better then being a serf in a christian kingdom back then)

as for alexander what i find interesting is that i heard/read somewhere that kraterus means the strongest in greek so when alexander said that his empire went to the strongest could he actually mean the captain of the infantry (???)

[antisocialmunky]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

I don't want to start this debate but ERE was more of a continuence in institutions directly created by the Roman Empire rather than the same Roman Empire. More of a Rome In Name Only which everyone knew and talked behind their backs about. You could argue that the attempt at reconquering the Empire was the death of the Roman Empire when that failed because it was at there point, the Byzantines went their own way and gave up on the past.

EDIT:
Whoops, looks like someone already started it lol.

[Andros Antonius]

Very true. Rome was founded 753BC, and the last remnants of the ERE were conquered in 1461 - which makes for an astonishing 2,214 years of more or less continued existence.

It is true that slower growing empires last longer, and I think even the true Roman empire without the Byzantines lasted long enough, and their legacy definitely lives on today. No wonder so many later nations tried to consider themselves their spiritual successors. Besides, for the later half of the Byzantine empire, it was more Greek in character than Roman.

But if you really want to think of a long running empire or nation, don't forget Ancient Egypt, which I think maintained a consistent culture for over 2000 years, even though the dynasties and kingdoms weren't always continuous. Or better yet, China is one of the oldest cultures that has survived intact for millennia, with the same people ruling except for a few occasions like the Mongol conquest.

[fleaza]

ancient egypts culture was of such power and awe that all those who conquered egypt adopted egyptian customs instead of the egyptians adopting the conquerors customs. thats what "the conqueror becomes the conquered" means i think.

as for the theory on alexanders arsenic poisoning. the symptoms of alexander was of severe discomfort (coughing, vomit, diaorhea etc), a sharp pain, sweating, loss of strength. all tell tale signs of aresnic poisoning. the shock of pain is important becuase it said that some time into medius's party alexander cried out in pain. he later asked to shove in a sword to put an end to the pain. that couldnt have been just fever.

im thoroughly convinvecd ptolemy was the assassin, or at least, had a part to play in the assassination.

[Raygereio]

as for the theory on alexanders arsenic poisoning. the symptoms of alexander was of severe discomfort (coughing, vomit, diaorhea etc), a sharp pain, sweating, loss of strength. all tell tale signs of aresnic poisoning. the shock of pain is important becuase it said that some time into medius's party alexander cried out in pain. he later asked to shove in a sword to put an end to the pain. that couldnt have been just fever.

I don't know.
Those symptomes can also sound like malaria, or hepatitis (due to his alcoholabuse).