Thessalonian

It looks like the point was missed though. Alexander lived around 900 years before Khalid ibn al-walid. Alexander would never learn anything from Khalid regarding war strategy.... It is the other way around. So, the student has always the advantage of learning from his teacher and improve knowledge! Since these two were not even close to be contemporaries, I don't see the point of comparison. A lot of things change within one millenium!

Eternalsonata

A great feat but a feat that has been done numerous times in history, it isn't something uncommon and spectacular.

Alexander did inherit the best army and had the resources provided to him. Alexander did use the similar tactics in his battles - position himself along with the Companion calvary and hit the center and defend with the left. Alexander did fight a large foe but was also one of the worst trained army (much of the infantry except selected special corps were a vast contingent of peasant levis with virtually no training and no weapons).

As already mentioned, Khalid's army consisted of light troops waged war against a numerical and quality superior foe - Byzantines and Sassanids with heavy armored units and horse archers.

Their existence to each other are unknown. We can compare the generalship and leadership skills, its really all in fun and comparing who bests the others.

Thessalonian

Everyone knew about Alexander... He was known to Egyptians (where one of the Alexandrias was built) He was so legendary that even today there are tribes in Afghanistan like KALAS who claim to be his ancestors. His fame reached even India. It is impossible for Khalid not to know about him, when the whole Persian world knew him too well! Khalid was an Arab. Arabs studied all about earlier civilizations, such as Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks. In 1939, the Bank of Afghanistan released banknotes featuring a Macedonian head and greek words around it.

To claim that Khalid knew nothing about Alexander the Great is pretty hard to believe.

Jagger

The reason why later Muslim generals were also successful in later campaigns was because they had previously fought under Khalid's leadership during the early campaigns. For example, Amr ibn al-As had fought under Khalid's leadership during his conquest of Roman Syria, before Amr was later promoted to lead the Arab conquest of Roman Egypt.

The one thing those three had in common was that they ended three different Persian Empires (the Achaemenid, Sassanid and Khwarezmian dynasties). Why does it always have to be Persia at the receiving end of their campaigns?

Are you seriously suggesting that a bunch of illiterate nomadic Bedouin tribes in the Arabian deserts would be educated in Greek history, let alone Alexander specifically? I would find it extremely hard to believe if Khalid had even heard of Alexander, let alone know anything about him.

I think you're probably confusing two different time periods. What you're referring to is a much later time, long after the Arabs had established the Islamic Caliphate. It wasn't until the 9th century that Arabs began translating ancient Greek writings into Arabic. Prior to that time, the Arabs knew virtually nothing about the ancient Greeks. The only Greeks the Arabs knew in the 7th century were the Byzantine Greeks, though they called themselves Romans rather than Greeks. In fact, most Arabs today still don't know who Alexander is. Hell, even many Westerners today don't know who Alexander the Great is, in this globalized internet age of ours.

Thessalonian

The fact that they were "illiterate nomadic Bedouin tribes in the Arabian deserts" means absolutely nothing. Afghanistan illiterate nomadic tribes such as Kalash knew all about Alexander and claim they were his ancestors! Tradition in those ages was mostly oral. The news about Alexander's triumph vs. Persia spread by mouth to all nearby tribes.

I will give you an example... Ptolemy was born in Egypt. He had never been to Ireland or Britain, but he learnt a lot about it and even gave them names (Great and Lesser Bretannia). How do you think he found out those islands exist? News travelled by mouth in the ancient times....

Jagger

There is not a single shred of evidence that the desert nomads of Arabia knew anything about Alexander, especially considering the fact that most of Arabia was never even ruled by the Greeks, Romans or Persians. To suggest such a thing would be incredibly far-fetched, so if you're going to make a bold claim like that, then I'd like to see you post some evidence, or at least a source, to support your claim. As for the Kalash, virtually nothing is known about their history prior to the 18th century, and it's only in modern times that they started claiming to be the descendents of Alexander, so that doesn't prove anything.

Ptolemy was the most famous geographer of his time. Of course he would know about the nations of the known world. That's what he specialized in. If Ptolemy was some illiterate desert nomad, then sure, you might have a point, but otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Thessalonian

Jagger, how do you expect to receive written evidence when we talk about oral traditions? Also, being literate or illiterate has nothing to do with having a couple of ears that can hear spoken words. Just like Ptolemy heard that there are two big islands, north or Europe...... the nomads of Arabia and Persia were hearing stories about some great man of the past.

Regarding Kalash, those people did not wake up one day and thought about being descendants of Macedonians. These people look more white, and oral tradition taught them who they were.

Much of history is based upon oral tradition, which was then written down.

Eternalsonata

I tend to disagree with your claim. Alexander is possibly mentioned in the Qur'an as Dhul-Qarnayn meaning "two-horned" but those are stories and myths that described a great ruler that built long walls to keep Gog and Magog from attacking people (Supernatural humans or demons). That has nothing to do with military exploits; he's mentioned in a fable that describes a wall, which led many Islamics to search for this "wall". It is highly unlikely that Khalid or any other Arabs at the time studied military arts from Alexander or anyone in the west for that matter. There is absolutely no information regarding that whatsoever but if you have proof, it would all enlighten us.

In that time, the best they would know about Alexander would probably be that's he a great conqueror and that's probably it.

PS. Some Islamic scholars think Dhul-Qarnayn could be either Alexander or Cyrus the Great

Mandate of Heaven

I don't see your point. When people say the Sassanid Persians and Byzantines were at their last legs, they can back up their statement with the long years of costly war between Sassanid Persians and Byzatines. The war was exhausting on both sides. That was very clear. What evidence do you have to support the claim that Darius' empire before Alexander was a "collapsing empire"? Darius' Empire had no rival. It was THE undisputed superpower. It had not engaged in any very costly, long campaigns. And there is no reason to think it was collapsing at all.

Byzatines and Sassanid Persians, on the other hand, were not the superpower they once were when they faced the Muslims. Secondly, Sassanid Persians had to fight both the Muslims AND the Byzantines at the same time. That is very different from Darius' Persia which only had to worry about the Macedonians and therefore could concentrate its strength. Not to say Darius' Persia was wealthier, commanded more territories, and therefore, probably stronger. When people talk about Muslims defeating Byzantines and Sassanid Persians, they almost seem to say Byzantines and Sassanid Persians fought the Muslims as one. If that were true, Muslims defeating them would be a great feat. But the truth is not like that at all, the focuses of Byzantines and Sassanid Persians were primarily to defeat each other, and they spent most of their resources on that goal. Muslims were merely being opportunistic.

Eternalsonata

The Achaemenid Empire declined as a result of rebellions, struggle for power, and corruption (Ministers and Satraps).

The Achaemenid Empire's arguably best rulers were Cyrus and Darius since they both strengthened the Empire through their administrative abilities as leaders and their military prowesses. However, after Darius the Great died, the quality of rulers began to disintegrate and lack what Cyrus and Darius possessed.

Xerxes, the successor to Darius, was occupied with suppressing revolts in Egypt and Babylonia. Should be noted that Xerxes' invasion of the Greek Peloponnesus suffered horribly after the defeat at Salamis and Plataea. Since Xerxes' heir - Artaxerxes died, it caused a riff in which the Empire was separated into factions and caused a struggle for power.

Darius III was not a particularly the greatest commander either. It's already fact that Alexander's army was much superior than Darius and the Persians. Alexander faced a declining empire, weak military generals, and a weak army.