Oh come on, please try not to disrespect Alexander the Great!

@@nestormakepontos9700 why is it disrespectful?

@@nestormakepontos9700 why though. Your sexuality doesn't take away from your greatness for example Malik kufar of Delhi sultanate for example who defeated mongols, yadavas,kakatiya and took Kohinoor diamond as gift to sultan was himself a homosexual eunuch and lover of the sultan.

@@KingsandGenerals he means that if you don't throw in atleast one reference to Alexander "only ever being defeated by Hephaestions thighs" there will be riots.

Why? Who is interested in the sexuality of a king or general?

Xenophon

Were there any western campaigns if we do not count Egypt..?

@@Ms314159265358979323 the Balkan and Greek campaigns I imagine

@@nathanfrancis9411 That is north and south.

@@Ms314159265358979323 yeah but they’re still west relative to his other campaigns, but idk if that’s what this guy was trying to say lol

@@nathanfrancis9411 I just enjoy nitpicking when I am bored lol...

@BOSIE321 Richard the Lion Heart beat similar forces at Arsuf. Saladins army had much more mobile troops compared to Richard. Saladin's army were around 25,000 soldiers, almost all cavalry (horse archers, light cavalry, and a minority of heavy cavalry) Richard's army possessed only 10,000 infantry (including spearmen and crossbowmen) and 1,200 heavy cavalry and he still crushed them.

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- That's true but a lot of the armies in the Crusades struggled with feigned retreats and being baited by horse archers if i recall. I find it interesting that Alexander saw their worth and he seems to use them a lot from this point onward (especially in India)

@@BOSIE321 Kings and generals did a very good video on Arsuf, worth checking out 👍

@@BOSIE321 Alexander was educated by Aristotle. His friends were similarly educated, and trained. Most crusaders were illiterate and made their tactical decisions based on whether God wills it or not. The invention of the Gutenberg press didn't come until later, when they rediscovered Greek and Roman wisdom. When the crusaders arrived at the gates of Constantinople the Byzantines were shocked by how barbaric they were.

@@BOSIE321 Wrong. The Crusaders quickly adapted to horse archers and incorporated them into their armies in the form of Turcopole troops and mercenaries, sometimes composing the majority of their armies. If the Crusaders eventually lost, it had more to due with bad logistics, poor manpower and disunity.

The Cat has 9 lives.

or at least end in a draw or settlement

Gotta feel for him, Diarrhea spoils anyone!

Not really but if you look at it like a movie trailer then yeah it’ll seem like that. It’s history it’s way better

Regardless of what all the alexander haters you’ll see in the comments for this series say; alexander was a combination of the great man meeting the geopolitical context of the time. A man of great ability who was able to fully utilize the means at his disposal and was in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the regional political situation he was in.

ehmmm. Napoleon I. was even better. The best leader of all.

@@markcoroneos7811 Alexander was incredibly astute politically for someone that young. He could've stopped after Issus or Gaugamela and he would have still been called The Great. But he read the Persian state of affairs correctly and knew he could take it all. Fortunately, Darius The III was nothing like his ancestor Darius The I who chased The Scythians deep into Europe. He would've fought Alexander to the death and not turned tail in battle. Coincidentally, he was planning an invasion of Greece before he died.

@@Ms314159265358979323 I'm sure Napoleon would've have agreed with you. But he did admire Alexander and his execution of The Persian Campaign.

@@redghettosun9785 i was just gonna say, who was napoleon’s hero 😜 Yeah precisely, i was reading that he ideally wanted darius alive so he could rule the persian part of the empire as a vassel to alexander - keeping as much of the political and social structure intact as he could so as not to lead to constant rebellions through changing too much too soon. You can see that by the way he kept the satrap system in place and allowed for provincial autonomy in the same way as the Persians. That is what made cyrus and darius I so successful. Greece was a different matter, he had to break the autotomy of the polis so as not to have the same issue.

How long does it take to make a video such as this?

Are you a professional historian?

Or did "Kings and Generals" come to you or how did you get in contact?

​@@memorymeme51 It can depend on the subject, how much info is out there etc. and a lot of other things. On average though, I'd say that the research and writing, in an ideal world, would take about 2 weeks. Then there's all the other steps, animating, narrating etc. but that's not my side of things, so I'm not sure I can say how long all that takes as well

@@longdongjohnson814 Erm, depends what you count as professional I guess, I'm doing a PhD in ancient history at the moment and, basically through sheer luck, have been working with KnG for a few years now!

Crassus faced cataphracts led by a seasoned general, alexander just fought some hill tribes. Also crassus didnt have the companion cavalry. But i also believe alexander would act differently at carrhae.

@@lordshang8838 to be fair, we dont have enough details to determine if the Parthian army at Carrhae were composed mostly of elite professionals, nor do we have confirmation that the Scythians lacked basic training in their arts of war

​@@lordshang8838 some hill tribe? Sakas were adept horse archers. Alexander beat them without phalanx and while outnumbered. Crassarus wasn't a military man and did the exact opposite of what Alex did against sychnthians

Cataphracts are no joke they have the best heavy armor they have a sword can't penetrate their armor only blunt weapons can do it and they even use blunt weapons for close quarters that can crush your bone

@@hermitthelegend1188 the problem is Roman legion under crassarus didn't use combined arm tactics like Alexander's. Thus the difference

They are extinct peoples :)

@@warriorface31 we are still here and growing, go spread your hate for greece in a greek city if you love hating us so much :)

@@joaoalbertodosanjosgomes1536 wdym

@@warriorface31 actually the Greeks can be found in Southern Europe

@@wankawanka3053 Fakedonian?

Weren't they the same person though?

@@ADogNamedStay Alexander was even more buff...

Conan was more buff because....primobolan. The ancient secret. Primobolan.

Northern India. I doubt he could have co queried the rest of it had he tried.

@@michaelsinger4638 don't forget, it's not what armies of Chandra and Indian kings he will face but also all of malaria, dysentery and many more of which lowers much of his men's morale.

>conquest Attempted conquest

Alexander didn't withdraw he set up a treaty. He would give the Saka all of their captured soldiers back to them in return for never invading Macedonian territory ever again. The Saka agreed and they never bothered Alexander again. Yes the Saka underestimated the Macedonians. The underestimated how much of a brilliant tactician and strategist Alexander the Great was. He was a military genius and he was highly adaptable.

He was gay to

Herodotus claims Cyrus was defeated in Central Asia while there are many different versions of his death But according to other sources (and even Herodotus) plus his conquest map, Cyrus conquered lands up to modern day Aral sea and gained control over Jaxartes

Good point

Good suggestion, thank you!

And use the original google earth map for realism, not a fictional fake map. That shows in detail the original mountain passes and routes the Macedonian army had to march through. 👍

@@cocaleaf2358 the problem of the google earth is that the modern cities would appear on it, ironically, the fake maps are closer to the reality of the situation

@@josephguillerey4391 the cities are barely visible, you have to really zoom all the way in for the cities to be clearly visible.

You forgot to mention, brilliant generals like Robert E. Lee, George Patton, and the Duke of Wellington.

The Parthians wouldn't have fallen for that. They were a bit more disciplined compared to their nomadic Scythian cousins to the North. They kept their distance and only engaged momentarily, no prolonged melee to get pinned.

He had light infantry and did send a portion of his troops to attack the Parthian horse archers like Alexander did and his son was their leader ... They were all slaughtered by horse archers and heavy cataphracts and his son's head was put on a spear

Btw you forgot Cyrus the great and Genghis Khan

I'm glad you mentioned Ibn al Walid, he gets no mention whatsoever in the west outside of history buffs like everyone here. A truly incredible tactician and military leader.

it's crazy how far he got, all the way to the Fergana Valley, Tajikistan

@@danielzhang1916 as you know he went and had several battles in now 🇮🇳

@@christopherhanton6611 yes, I was making an example, since he founded Alexandria Eschate and other cities

Alexander used mainly his own professional soldiers.

@@klausbrinck2137 So in other words…. Capitalism 😂

@@christos3280 ωραίος μένεις Ελλάδα?

Cyaxares did it way before him several times in several different regions and ways Red wedding style, ambush or betrayal, war and battle Cyrus The Great conquered lands up to modern day Aral sea and gained control over Jaxartes Darius The Great conquered the northern parts of the black sea (a fortress and an Achaemenid inscription has been found there as well) and some more lands in central Asia The Parthians conquered Chorasmians/Khwarazmians The Sassanids conquered and later reconquered Transoxiana and even defeated Turkic armies there or in Gokturk territories Yeah, nobody else did this

@@essaadeel3676 I'll name each and every Sassanid victory against the Hunnic and Turkic people in another comment since it's a long as hell list The Scythians were Iranian nomadic people The Parthians were kinda related to the Scythians yes that is probably true There are almost ten different versions of the story of Cyrus death and that one is famous just because Herodotus said it and even he mentions that what he wrote was only one out of many Literally no other Greek or Roman historian mentioned it There are enough evidence to prove how wrong it is The most logical one is written by Ctesias who was the physician of Artaxerxes II and a Greek historian who worked in the Achaemenid royal court And before you bring it up, no, I'm not a Persian, I'm a Mazandarani, more related to the Parthians

@@essaadeel3676 The abbasid era Kitab al-Taj has an anecdote in which narrates Ardashir Babakan's victory over Xionite or Kidarite (mistakingly called Huns or Khazars) tribes during his eastern campaigns (probably an early migration) Shapur II fought the Xionites and in the end they were forced to serve in the Sassanid army (most probably after a Sassanid victory) in their battles with Rome at the siege of Amida In year 395, during the reign of Bahram IV, two Hunnic armies under Basiq and Kursich that had entered the middle east through the Caucasus, were defeated by the Sassanids (probably lead by Bahram IV himself) in Mesopotamia and lost all of the spoils and prisoners they had stolen during their raids During the reign of Bahram V (who is called Bahram Gur because of his obsession with hunting onagers), while Bahram was occupied with the war with the Romans (whom he fought to a stalemate), Kidarites crossed the Oxus river and invaded the Sasanian realm, conquering the rich city of Merv and even reaching as far as westwards as Ray However, Bahram made peace with Rome, passed through the mountain chain on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, eventually reaching Merv There, he and his army routed the Kidarite army, killed the Kidarite king in battle and captured his wife A general of Bahram pursued the Kidarites into Sogdiana/Transoxiana and inflicted another heavy defeat on them The war was concluded in 427 with a decisive Sassanid victory and Bahram cementing his name as a great champion of Iran The name of Bahram was long remembered amongst the people of the surrounding area The Sogdian city of Bukhara would later mint coins with his image Between the year 435 to 440 the Huns under the infamous Attila and Bleda invaded the Caucasus after forcing the Romans into a treaty in Huns favor, but were heavily defeated in Armenia by the Sassanids which made them abandon their invasion plan and flee back to Europe, never coming back even near the Sassanid borders In 450, Yazdegerd II launched an expedition deep into the Kidarite territory in Central Asia, raiding and capturing "their" forts and cities, which resulted in the accumulation of many captives and riches and managed to secure the eastern portion of his empire against the Kidarite incursions Few of Yazdegerd's Armenian generals were also able to repel and defeat some Hunnic attacks in the east The Kidarites did defeat one of Yazdegerd's generals but the war continued and they were finally completely defeated once by Yazdegerd, once by Peroz I (He defeated Kidarite king Kunkhas) and then again by a Sassanid Hephthalite alliance but the Sassanids and Hephthalites became enemies and then the Sassanid king, Peroz I, was defeated 3 times and killed in the end and most of north eastern Sassanid provinces were conquered by Hephthalites However, the Hephthalites were stopped and defeated by an Iranian noble called Sukhra of the house of Karen but since most of the Sassanid army was lost during those 3 battles, they weren't able to take back the lost territories Surkhab quickly installed Peroz brother, Balash, on the Sassanid throne, regrouped the rest of the Sassanid army and marched against the Hephthalite king, Khushnavaz When he reached Gorgan, Khushnavaz was informed of Surkhab's plan of attacking him, he prepared his men for battle and sent a message to Surkhab, asking him his name, official position and intentions Surkhab shortly sent a message back, informing him of his name and position Khushnavaz thereafter sent another message, warning him of doing the same mistake as Peroz I However, he wasn't discouraged by Khushnavaz words and even raided Hephthalite territories, met Hephthalite king's army in battle and inflicted a heavy defeat on him This made Khushnavaz sue for peace which Surkhab would only accept if the Hephthalites would give him everything that had been seized from Peroz camp including all his wealth, royal treasury, his chief priest and Peroz's daughter, Perozdukht His demands were accepted and peace was made He then returned to Ctesiphon, where he was received with great honor by nobles and people like a hero In 503, Kavad I countered and repelled a Hephthalite attack and in 508, a Sasanian campaign under Kavad I, led to the conquest of the Zundaber (Zumdaber) Castellum, associated with the temple of az Zunin in the area of ad Dawar, situated between Bust and Kandahar Based on the Sassanid coin found in Merv, it's indicated that the Sassanids under Kavad I defeated the Hephthalites and reconquered the great Khorasan Khosrow Anushiravan, allied with the Gokturks, and conquered the southern half of the Hephthalite empire while the Gokturks conquered the northern half The Hephthalite king, Ghadfar, and what was left of his men, took refuge in the Sassanid empire under Khosrow Anushiravan Gokturks sent a delegate with gifts to strengthen the alliance They made a treaty and sent, Faghanish, the Hephthalite who was supposed to be their own puppet king to Ctesiphon to be approved by Khosrow who made Faghanish and his kingdom into his own vassal instead In 562, Khosrow defeated the Hephthalites AGAIN and also stopped the threat of Turks Sinjibu attacked the Sassanid borders but in the end, gave his daughter's hand in marriage to Khosrow Anushiravan which wouldn't have been possible without a Sassanid counter attack and victory since back then the victor got a princess from the loser The Sassanids then defeated the Gokturks in the first and second Perso Turkic wars and killed their king and leaders in both wars Bahram Chobin defeated them once in Hyrcania's borders and twice in Central Asia and killed the Gokturk king Plus captured the Gokturk prince who became king after his father's death in the first war Smbat IV Bagratuni defeated the Gokturk Hephthalite alliance in the second Perso Turkic wars by killing their leader in one vs one combat and then routed their army The Sassanids even defeated an invading Khazar army in the Caucasus under Bahram Chobin

@@essaadeel3676 The abbasid era Kitab al-Taj has an anecdote in which narrates Ardashir Babakan's victory over Xionite or Kidarite (mistakingly called Huns or Khazars) tribes during his eastern campaigns (probably an early migration) Shapur II fought the Xionites and in the end they were forced to serve in the Sassanid army (most probably after a Sassanid victory) in their battles with Rome at the siege of Amida In year 395, during the reign of Bahram IV, two Hunnic armies under Basiq and Kursich that had entered the middle east through the Caucasus, were defeated by the Sassanids (probably lead by Bahram IV himself) in Mesopotamia and lost all of the spoils and prisoners they had stolen during their raids

@@essaadeel3676 During the reign of Bahram V (who is called Bahram Gur because of his obsession with hunting onagers), while Bahram was occupied with the war with the Romans (whom he fought to a stalemate), Kidarites crossed the Oxus river and invaded the Sasanian realm, conquering the rich city of Merv and even reaching as far as westwards as Ray However, Bahram made peace with Rome, passed through the mountain chain on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, eventually reaching Merv There, he and his army routed the Kidarite army, killed the Kidarite king in battle and captured his wife A general of Bahram pursued the Kidarites into Sogdiana/Transoxiana and inflicted another heavy defeat on them The war was concluded in 427 with a decisive Sassanid victory and Bahram cementing his name as a great champion of Iran The name of Bahram was long remembered amongst the people of the surrounding area The Sogdian city of Bukhara would later mint coins with his image Between the year 435 to 440 the Huns under the infamous Attila and Bleda invaded the Caucasus after forcing the Romans into a treaty in Huns favor, but were heavily defeated in Armenia by the Sassanids which made them abandon their invasion plan and flee back to Europe, never coming back even near the Sassanid borders

His life was fascinating, and he was doing all this when he was my age, 29.

Cyrus the great

@@hassanabdulsalam1000 From Persis to Asia Minor ? That's a Kap 🧢

@@nenenindonu nah nah Cyrus went east and west He also conquered Indus valley All the way to anatolia then he came back to fight babylonian empire

@Uhtred of Bebbanburg he did especially some sources say he died fighting against them

@Uhtred of Bebbanburg He did and probably lost his head to a chieftess from Massagatae, interesting isn't it 😅

it has... if i remember correctly there was an anime about alexanders life from the creator of aeon flux... both "old" animes and not at all historical (alexander) but it exist

@@the_andrewest_andrew Reign the Conquer

Well actually Athen helped a revolt in Persian territory first and all of this started...

@@GOD_Finoes I have a better one. Well actually ,the Persians occupied the greek colonies of Asia Minor first and all of this started.

@@Kimmerios-l5u well bro if i remember right, cyrus the great first told them to help him flank lidya but they allied with lidya instead and when Lidya fell, they also fell to persian hands. And you say since Greeks got colonies in many places around Mediterranean sea, Athens and other city states in mainland Greece should help them revolt whenever they want?

@@GOD_Finoes actually Cyrus never contacted the Greeks.They were too far to the West and far too less important. Actually many of these colonies were related with family ties with their metropolis It was exactly the case as in WW 1 and WW 2 where the Germans were fighting Britain only to find out that they were fighting Canada,Australia and New Zealand also.

@@Kimmerios-l5u i searched a little and found out that i was pretty wrong and cyrus didn't ask them to ally with him but he asked them for peace. But when they participated in war against him as an ally of lidya, and after the war when Lidya defeated they sued for peace but cyrus told them it's late. Anyway I'm pretty sure he contacted them(it's all written by Herodotus)

Real life usually tells better stories than fiction

⚰️🧟‍♂️ This is probably his second greatest battle. This episode kinda did it an injustice...the episode tried to fit in too much, and things were rushed. The Scythians intentionally camped near Alexander and then spent days taunting him by spitting insults accross the river. A lot of Scythians (espescially nobles) were captured. The Scythian leader died during the artillery barrage, which triggered the tactical retreat by the Scythians). In some sources, the Phalanx acted on the flanks of the army in this battle, to complete a partial envelopment (which is very unothadox). A lot of things were left out. Even Spitamanes should have been an episode on his own...this dude deserved more respect.

Long live Greece From 🇮🇷♥️🇬🇷 We like Alexander but the burning of Persepolis was a huge blow to our Zoroastrian religion

@@ShahanshahShahin well if you think about it its revenge cause of what they did in sparta athens and the islands but respect for all the fallen 🇬🇷❤️

​@@elmigo1191 I respect Greeks and Italians history, but the invasion happened because of the Greeks themselves when they burned Sardis

It worked against a small tribal force that probably wasn't very organized, but wouldn't work against a disciplined army, that would maintain formation and avoid being distracted and outflanked. Also, and probably more importantly, it depends on having a sufficiently open place to force a pitched battle and having disciplined and competent soldiers to act as decoys. Most generals could never hope to send a force into a difficult situation like that and get anything but retreat and defeat out of it.

@@tl8211 like square formations at Waterloo?

@@tl8211 Barbarossa used the same tactic in the battle of Doryleum, thousands of years later, and it worked. Against the seljuks, who had a fucking empire in persia and anatolia.

Yes, we will pay, he is going to write a very annoyed comment

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I feel cheated by my schooling. 😳

I never learned about this in detail in school, just the basics

Yep crassa was surrounded he also didn't have enough ranged troops to pin them down

Crassus should have extended his lines to protect his army from envelopment. Around Carrhae there are a few terrain features that Crassus could have used to secure his flanks even more, such as the hills to the North East and North West of the town itself, as well as the river to the west, which Cassius Longinus recommended following. With their flanks secured, the Romans would then only have had to worry about a front assault. Surena had 1,000 cataphracts and I think between 6-9,000 horse archers. There is no way that this force could have frontally broken through the Roman infantry line, at least not in a way that would have rolled up the whole formation. From a hilltop position, with secured flanks, the Romans could have just waited for the Parthians to attack and then repulsed them with a downhill counter charge. Or in a battle line on flatter ground, again with flanks secure, they could have attacked, retreated, luring the Parthians into a trap with pre dug trenches, caltrops, etc., like what Sulla had used decades earlier. There are a myriad of tactics and tricks that Crassus could have chosen instead of forming his whole army into a square, which is a terrible battle formation for anything other than defensive fighting. And you don't win against maneuverable horsemen by being defensive, at least not that way. Considering he wasn't a complete novice at war, Crassus was taken by surprise and did not expect to actually fight a decisive battle where he did, under those circumstances. The guy has an army of almost 50,000 men, his camp followers alone probably doubled the amount of combatants brought by Surena. The surprise of the effectiveness of the horse archers, their seemingly unlimited amount of arrows, and the shock of losing his son is what caused Crassus to lose the initiative that first day. The second day was doomed, as the Roman army at that point had zero morale.

@@Willzy800 If Romans would've just waited on a hilltop instead of advancing, then they would give the Parthians what they actually wanted Slowing the Romans until the arrival of the main Parthian army (which had a successful campaign in Armenia) Surena's mission was to slow Crassus down by harrassing his army or using scorched earth tactic and buying time for the king who was busy fighting and punishing the Armenian king not to fight a decisive battle and beat the Romans The inferior number of the Parthian army was what gave Crassus the confidence to fight them on flat and open plains If they had taken a defensive position on hills or behind the river, Surena wouldn't have attacked since he was a smart commander unlike the Parthian general and prince who fought Ventidius The difference between him and them was that they were impatient, arrogant and were blinded by the pride of previous successes while Surena was a wise and patient general who had experience in open battle and siege since he fought Orodes brother twice and defeated him both times Even Orodes II (the Parthian king) was shocked to hear the news of his victory at Carrhae This channel made a video about Carrhae which focuses on Surena's strategy rather than Crassus mistakes

Crassus's overconfidence was his downfall. Engaging the Parthians on open ground was a fatal error. He should of advanced more cautiously, with a more secured rear communications. The king of Armenia offered passage through their lands, which was mountainous, disadvantageous to cavalry. Crassus was also impatient, he wanted quick victories, brought him quick death. He needed to be patient, advance methodically, inching closer with smaller achievements, it would of been a more drawn out affair, but one he could win. It would of resembled the wars amongst Antigonus, and Eumenes...........

Alexander deliberately sent his troops as bait, to die, crassus didn't send his son to die, he was supposed to rout the Parthians there. This same tactice was used by barbarossa in the battle of doryleum, the horse archers surrounded an infantry force, pinning them with arrow fire, then outflanked them with light cavalry. Curiously enough, in the firt crusade, the battle with the same name (Doryleum) was won in a similar manner, with the infantry forces of bohemond surrounded by horse archers being flanked by Godfrey of boullion.

Tbf, that's exactly what Alexander did. Many of his veterans were either sent home, or settled in the new Alexandrias, when they got old. Their numbers were replaced by a combination of men from Macedonia, Greek mercenaries, and troops trained in the Macedonian style from straps in Asia Minor. More and more natives got blended in throughout his campaign to replace old and wounded men

They did that by training young persian boys to fight in greek fashion. That's how later after Alexander Seleukids had large armies of Phalanx. Ptolomy trained egyptians boys. That's why they married local women and those back in Greece didn't like Alexander for that very reason seeing him as traitor in a way.

Alexander tried that, but his soldiers became jealous and it just caused even more friction. The Macedonians wanted to go home, but they also didn't want to be replaced. But more than that, they really didn't like the idea of their king becoming more and more Persian and surrounding himself with Asians. They wanted Alexander to go home, to remove him from the influence that was changing him. The Macedonians were pretty xenophobic.

@@petervoller3404 True, But, he did not make the transition completely or rapidly enough. That is why the army balked in going further east. He still had a very large Macedonian contingent when he went into India.

@@tylerdurden3722 While true, I think that came later. I think if he started the transition earlier, it would have become less of an issue, except for his generals.

Good to see that I was not the only one who saw the princeps at 11:30

I read it. It's amazing.

because persia was always a badass name to begin with 😎

I am pretty sure he already did, check his playlists.

@@resentfuldragon doesn't it go only to Ipsus though?