ALEXANDER THE CURSED BY FRAYDON ARYAN
KING DARIUSH MESSAGE TO
ALEXANDER
The King of Iran, Dariush III,
wrote to Alexander:
We
command you to withdraw and to return back to the bosom of your mother Olympias,
for you are still an impetuous and shameless boy, who in your madness and
ignorance have come to Asia with your band of robbers to do
mischief.
I therefore send you a whip, a ball, and a bag of
Gold. A whip to train you, a ball
so that you may play with boys of your own age and not meddle in the affairs of
men. And the Gold, for expenses,
for I have heard that you are poor.
And since I have Gold and abundant as the sun’s light, you need not come
to the empire to steal it.”
Alexander's reply:
You
should have not informed me of your vast amount of Gold and silver, because now
I will fight harder, until all your possessions are mine. Nor have called me a thief and a boy,
for if you slay me, it would not be a great triumph because you would have slain
merely a robber chief. But if I
slay you, it would be said this great king died of a hand of a little Macedonian
boy.”
Alexander promised his mercenary
army Gold, Women, and Kingship and
all they could get their hands on.
This was the reason they came into the Iranian Empire. And not notions, civilizing to which
they had none. For they were in
truth, the barbarians, and the rest of the world,
civilized.
Wherever he went, he left only
charred ruins, as his monument.
I
have every day to look at Takht-e-Jamsheed and be reminded that it was built and
it was burned. Alexander came and
destroyed an Empire. He took many
things from us, and he gave us nothing.”
Dr. Shahpur
Shahbazi,
Director of the Institute of
Achamenian studies.
Custodian of
Takht-e-Jamsheed.
Many
treasures taken, many stones broken.
Yet
Iranian pride is unbroken.
Many
killed, many tortured,
Yet
Iranian self-determination is unbroken.
Many
stories told, many stories written,
Yet he
still remains cursed
Many
centuries past, many decades gone,
Yet his
ruins remain, for all to see.
The
tyrant of history, hero of great books,
Yet he
remains evil to his roots.
Barbarian tribes, savages of
time,
have
come to regard him as good.
Righteous minds, good men of
time,
have
always known Alexander the accursed.
Poem on Alexander by Fraydon
A.
ALEXANDER’S ATTACK ON THE
RELIGION OF IRAN
It is mentioned that Alexander
did not come across the Mobeds (religious leaders) of Iran.
Besides the destruction and
burning to the ground of Tahkt-e-Jamsheed which stored the original copy of the
sacred holy book (Avesta) of the Iranians, alongside a million other great works
of the time, from the sciences to medicine, astrology and geography, He murdered more than one thousand
Dasturs (high priests), Who were guardians of prophet Zarathushtra’s work. And destroyed the fire temples, sold the
inhabitants into slavery and, overall, left more than three million
dead.
Is this the mark of
Greatness?
Is this the type of leader the
West still strives for?
More than five thousand women
alone at Takht-e-Jamsheed committed suicide rather than face Alexander's
rule. As had been done by the
Marmares on the borders of Lycia finding themselves besieged by the Macedonians,
they committed mass suicides (historian Diodorus).
All the elders of the city
killed, such an orgy of mass murder and destruction is what civilised nations
and cultures of the world do not need.
Alexander is an embarrassment to the history of man. A Great Robber who destroyed the Iranian
empire without putting anything of value in its place.
And for any one else to think
other wise is nothing short of evil
itself.
One should speak of and praise
men who have advanced and helped humanity and civilisation and not those who
sought to destroy it. Building
takes years, destruction takes days to achieve.
Takht-e-Jamsheed took one hundred
and sixty four years to build, yet it took Alexander only a day to destroy. Does he really deserve to be called Great’, has the Western society become
so immoral that it credits Greatness to such historical characters?
.
KING KAHSHAYARSHAH (XEREXES)
ATTACK ON GREECE
The so-called Greek victory of
5992 AZ=79 IE=480 BC against the Iranian Empire is another myth of
history.
The Iranians were not stopped in
any way in taking over Greece. As
much as the event resembled the
Gulf War’ and the so-called liberation of Kuwait, The Americans had no intention of taking
over Iraq, but only freeing Kuwait from Iraqi control. The Iraqis did not defeat the
Americans. Although they might like
to think so, as the Greeks do of the above.
The Iranians wanted to free
several islands from the constant attack and piracy of the Greeks. They achieved their ends in securing
peace for the lands and stopping the aggression of the Greeks. The Iranian Empire had no need to take
over Greece. Especially lands of
Greeks, that were insignificant and worthless to the
Empire.
Reference has been made to some
strange history that one hundred and fifty years earlier Athens had been sacked!
? By the Iranians, namely king
Kahshayarshah the Great. What
possible historical precedent is there for one to believe in such a blatant
lie? Something that might have
taken place one hundred and fifty years earlier in Athens, that was not even
part of Alexander's country Macedonia, is a strange justification for his
barbaric destruction of Takht-e-Jamsheed.
So are other stories, which range from him being drunk or not present at
the scene. Such lies are childish
and for any educated person to take them as truth is laughable and only shows
ignorance of the subject matter
prejudice and deep-seated’
hatred towards the Iranians.
Which city of the world did the
Iranians destroy? All the countries that became part of the Great Iranian Empire
had their holy places rebuilt by the wealth of the empire as is mentioned in the
Old Testament in relation to Solomans temple in Jerusalem.
No other empire or country or
government before the Hakhamanish
empire had treated its captives or occupied countries in such a
manner.
Indeed it was such an empire that
Alexander attacked, he was no liberator such as Kourash (Cyrus) the Great who
freed all the slaves and returned them to their own cities when he took over
Babylon.
Alexander was no law giver such
as Dariush the Great who established a uniform law system.
Alexander was in fact no
different to many evil men of our world history, such as Genghis Khan’. And therefore if by Great’ it is meant Great Evil’, then historically we have
many Great leaders’ that we did not
know about. !!
A lot has been said about his
Great military battles. It should
not be forgotten that all great military nations and especially armies of the
world have certain laws to follow in war and are as today vulnerable to sudden
attacks and aggression such as terrorism and guerilla war.
What an organised army aims for,
is strict order and civilised behaviour, and the well being of the nation and
its population.
Alexander was never a good leader
for his own country Macedonia, nor was he fighting a just war or a conventional
war. In fact he had surrounded
himself with a gang of murderers.
All their battles with Iran were
based on sudden raids, destruction and burning; and the next day a different
location but more of the same. They
did not stay behind to take care of the sick and the
dying.
It is natural that if a criminal
kills a famous wealthy man he will get written about in newspapers, shown on
television, and books written about him.
But it is not he who is Great but it is Greatness that he has
destroyed. I hope that this is not
forgotten as so many times it is.
GREEK
SLAVERY
The
major achievement of ancient Greece lies in the unshakeable belief in the worth
of the individual person.”
That must be why they had
slavery?
Greek
law, based on popular consent, aimed at improving conditions for all
citizens.”
page 12
Greece, the land and its
people”
by Jim Antoniou, Macdonald
Educational 1980.
Though no woman (who had no
political rights), foreigner or slave could become a
citizen.
The Greeks were a gang of
barbarians in the sense that they allowed slavery, their women were treated as
slaves, and they had no respect for other cultures or people who were not
Greek.
Greek society relied heavily on
slaves to supplement its labour force.
There was in fact no
society’, civilized as we know of.
There were slaves and masters.
And of course foreigners who were barbarians.
The Iranians’ achievement
represented a significant step forwards for civilization. To run such a vast domain, which had
never existed before, they developed new, enlightened techniques for governing
large areas and populations. Before
them the old empires such as the Assyrian's used brute power and terror to control and rule over the masses. Fear had become part of
empire-building. The Iranians alone
broke that rule. A rule that soon
was forgotten in the coming age of Alexander, Roman, Arab and Mongol
empires.
All the countries that came under
the fold of the Iranian empire benefited economically and saw their living
standards improve with peace and security that was guaranteed. And stability that lasted and allowed
for great building works to take place.
Human society had not seen such perfect administration and government
before.
The Iranian empire was the
civilizing force of the old world.
In the immortal words of one of
its greatest kings of Hakamenesh: Dariush the Great who staunchly supported the
rule of law, and not only for the powerful.
So that the stronger does not smite nor
destroy the weak.” The Iranians
were the only country in the known world that aspired and worked for universal
rights of man. And it had been for
this reason that the founder of the Iranian empire, Kourash is rightly
remembered in the book of Jewish
people the Old Testament as the
anointed one’
For the Iranian nation and its
people, this civilising humanitarian attitude had been of no surprise. For it had been more than five thousand
years before the founder of the Great World Empire of the Hakamenesh, that the
Great faith of Zarathustra was preached, and the proclamation of a single God
practiced. The belief system that
guided the Jews and shaped the thinking of all monotheistic belief systems of
the world from Christianity to Islam.
Zarathusthranism was the only
religion of its time to speak of the righteous path, and to speak of the great
struggle between Good And Evil. In
fact after eight thousand four hundred and seventy years, it is the oldest
religion and the only one that has
not changed in its teachings or needed to do, so as it is still relevant for our
age. All other religions of the
world have been lost and forgotten, for the single reason that their bore no
significance for their new age. Of
course this is the test of truth.
The test of true religions of God.
In less than one thousand three
hundred and seventy seven years of the existence of Islam, we see today that it
has no relevance to the age and is incapable of progressing the life of those
who believe in it. To practice the
Koran is suicide, as Afghanistan, Iran and Algeria are testimony to its
destructive force.
The practice of the holy Avesta
on the other hand brings enlightenment and peace to the believer and to fellow
humans.
In the era of the Hakamenesh Empire, as noted
above, we had also had the Greek States (The term is difficult to use in this
period of history (5772 AZ=141 BIE=700 - 6072 AZ=159 IE=400 BC) since Greek” was and had been a term and an
idea for the Athenians. Apart from
the Athenians hardly no other state believed or wanted such a
creation.
And for this reason and many
others the term was nonexistent as the term Europe” was nonexistent in 5772 AZ=141
BIE=700 BC or in 6672 AZ=759 IE=200 AD.
However, I have used the term, in
this essay, for ease of understanding as I feel to go in depth in explaining the
misuse of the term would deter and confuse the reader, and for this reason alone
I have used names and terms that the West is familiar
with.
In their world, slavery was well
developed and practiced and many of its leading intellectuals preached its Great principles’. The so called great thinkers of Greece
have also justified it.
In fact they tell us that from
Homeric times to Alexander, the practice had been common, and had a valuable and
fundamental part in the economics and social life of
Greece.
As a matter of fact, one can
justly describe the Greek city states as slave societies, and with it a society
of inequality, hardships, suffering, injustice, immorality, and
discrimination.
Those who visit Greece of today
and who might admire the classical buildings should know that they have been
built by the suffering of thousands in slave labour and the wealth of other
nations.
The attitudes, views and the
society that existed cannot in anyway be called civilized. Slavery, Prostitution, Homosexuality to
name a few of the vices that existed in Greece were allowed, practiced and
promoted.
On the other hand at the same
period of history we have the Iranian society in which none of the above was
allowed or practiced, and most certainly was not promoted.
The Greeks however do not stand
condemned for their way of life or society. But stand condemned for trying to force
their form of society on other nations (Alexander) and teaching of such evil
thought’s to the Romans, British, French and Americans. Who if it had not been for the Greeks
would probably not have had slavery and would probably not have viewed others
as barbarians’ a term used by
ancient Greeks.
It had been mostly their
justification for slavery, and its use and the need for slavery that shaped the
minds of Western leaders and condemned million’s of Africans, Asians and Native
Americans to a life of no value.
The matter of slavery has in most
cases been overlooked and not mentioned by
Historians’. This is no
surprise since it does not fit into the picture of the Greek Civilisation” which purportedly
was a beacon for humanity.
Aristotle in his Politics’ sees a slave as someone who
belongs to his master completely, as an
animate piece of property’ and can be seen as a tool. One obvious mark of being the property
of another is that one may be bought and sold.
He like all Greeks saw that the
slave and the free were different in that slaves were answerable with their
bodies for their offenses, and were regularly whipped and were tortured
legally.
Slaves have to do everything they
are told, slaves have no birthrights, and do not belong in the society in which
they are enslaved (whether they came to it as captives, bought property, or were
bred there); rather, they remain permanently foreign, outsiders’, having no social
identity.
Slavery is unimaginable and the
state of dishonour, unthinkable.
And it is this that Alexander offered the world and the
Iranians-Brutality and Exploitation.
Those who where enslaved during
adult life often had their previous identity formally removed in the process of
sale: Stripped of clothing, former names, kin, nationality, and even their
personality.

The Greeks had even phrased terms
for slavery such as
Andrapodon’, four-footed
creature’, literally means
man-footed creature’ referring to a human being as an animal or a thing,
to be bought and sold.
Other demeaning terms used
where Oikos’ (household), Oiketes’ (houseboy), Therapon’ (servant), Akolouthos (follower), Soma’ (body), Anthropos (human being), suggesting that
he or she is merely a human being with no further identity.
And Pais (child, boy or girl)
applied to slaves of any age.
Athenian plays of Athenaeus and
Aristophanes justify calling an old
slave Pais, since like children
they need to be beaten’.
The regular beating of children
and wives was normal behaviour for the Greeks and in their word for beat’, one can see the connection
clearly: Pais = boy Paiein = to beat.
Slaves were everywhere to be seen
in Greek society.
Extended defence of slavery and
even advice on how to select, train and manage slaves is given by Xenophon (6112
AZ=199 IE=360 BC), Aristotle in his book
of Politics’, Plato in
his Laws’,and Athenaeus in Deipnosphistai’ (6672 AZ=759 IE=200
AD)(i.e Intellectuals at
Dinner’).
Homer’s poems(Odyssey) (5672
AZ=241 BIE=800 BC) thought to be fictional, never-the-less depict slaves of
whose origins we hear were war
booty’, to be owned by the victors, or sold, or given as gifts. It seems that in the Homeric period, the
slaves were mainly Greek, and in Classical Greece
foreigners.
In Greece free adult male
citizens were distinguished from slaves: other Greek males, foreigners and
women. The historian Theopompos (6072 AZ=159 IE=400 BC) and Thucydides, both
speak of and mention Greek slavery.
All of the history of Greece
shows slavery both approved of by the state.
In the Iranian empire, however,
there is no mention of slavery by it’s historians or thinkers. And it’s political leaders, such as
Koroush the Great and Dariush the Great, fought for freedom and nations and
awarded its citizens freedom and help in rebuilding their destroyed lives and
homes, as mentioned in the Old
Testament, and the inscriptions and clay tablets of Iran and
Babylon.
ALEXANDER THE
ALCOHOLIC
He quenched his raging thirst
with wine after coming out of fever:
in
the madness of his fever and in his thirst he drank wine excessively, and
thereupon became delirious and died” (Aristobulus states according to
Plutarch)
Also, the king’s Journal’ (written record of
Alexander’s acts day to day, compiled by Macedonians):
today he slept after the drinking. and
sometimes also the next day”.
The Macedonians drank hard
liquor, their wine was without added water. Alexander drank daily and spent part of
the day sleeping. And did so to the
last days of his life.
The great empire has
collapsed,
the seed of deceit has
triumphed.
The ruler of Greece has taken
seat,
our seat of Behesht
(Paradise).
A boy of no grace, has taken
our crown and grace.
Alexander is his name,
disgrace is his end.
Poem on Alexander by Fraydon
A.
HOW HE
CONQUERED
Over imaginative guesses have
been made about the remarkable feat of feeding so many men on the move so
quickly through Iranian territory.
From victory to victory he was
led on, by an open and well-stocked Royal Road.
The Iranian system allowed him,
as he went, to feed himself quite easily.
Governors and resident nobles had long piled up huge reserves of grain
and cattle for the people as a protection against famine. One castle alone could feed an army for
two years.
ALEXANDER THE
SAVAGE
Hephaestion died in 6148 AZ=235
IE=324 BC after an over doses of alcohol.
Alexander proclaimed mourning throughout Asia and made provision for a
funeral more lavish then any other.
During the campaign against the Cossaei, Alexander killed young Cossaeans
as human sacrifices to his dead lover Hephaestion.
In his later years Alexander
wished to be granted divine honours.
It appears from (the historian) Curtius that he made a request of the
Macedonian’s and that it was rejected, Antipater (viceroy of Macedonia) was
opposed to granting him divine honours after his death.
After his death the Macedonians
at Babylon did not bestow upon him divine honours.
(He was a great king but not the
greatest in opinion of Macedonians it appears).
WEDDINGS AT SUSA (political
capital of Iran)
It is written that at Susa he
held wedding ceremonies for himself
and his army.
He married three Iranian wives,
Barsine, Parysatis, and Roxane according to Greek writers (apart from his
hundreds of concubines!).
Also Drypetis to Hephaestion,
Amastrine to Craterus, Artacama to Ptolemy and so on altogether ninety two
bridegrooms.
All young women of the noblest
Iranian blood. Together, over ten
thousand Macedonians soldiers married.
Now all this might sound all good
for the (8472 AZ=2559 IE)1990’s in which intermarriage is
propagated. However, the one’s who
do so are not the conquered or forced to do so. The decision to do so, is entirely
theirs.
And even in this age we still
have communities and countries that consider this act illegal and against
religion such as the Jews. But more
importantly over two thousand years
ago when Alexander conquered Iran, he
ordered his men to marry Iranian women. The Iranians had and still do have
strict laws of marriage. Among the categories of a suitable partner were race,
religion, and class. To which
neither Alexander nor his men belonged.
It was perceived to be a very bad
omen for anyone to break these laws.
And it was into this culture and customs that Alexander married Iranian
women, taking into consideration also that most of them already had partners and
were married.
In effect this was an act of rape, humiliation and disrespect to a
culture, and to the religion and pride of Iranian womanhood. The strict law of the Zarathushtrian
religion permitted marriage to one wife only.
Many rapists of today also
consider their act as being with the woman’s consent. And the Macedonians or Greeks must have
fought this vile act of marriage.
No nationality in the world,
would want it’s beautiful daughters, to be given to the foreign occupying
forces?
And what women would want to
marry a foreign army that has murdered her people, her king, her priest, her
father, brother and mother and has devastated her country?
These are only a few questions
that arise from the sad episode of Iranian history in Alexander's time. How easily crimes are white washed
and even made too sound like unifying acts and so on.
ALEXANDER'S
ACHIEVEMENTS
Like much else that is told of
Alexander, including the omens that supposedly preceded and attended his birth,
are the inventions of the overactive imagination, of the lying Greek nature, and
over exaggeration of the events.
Ayatollah Khomenie in coming too
power in Iran (8451 AZ=2538 IE=1979 AD - 8461 AZ=2548 IE=1989 AD) renamed all of
previous regimes achievements and cities with his own
names.
We know he had no part building
these cities or contributing in any way to these cities or sites or
roads.
All evil men are principally
destructive (and very much the opposite of good leaders who are constructive for
their country), and ironically when
taking power they attribute all the good deeds to themselves and their cause, in
the hope that as time passes people will forget and actually believe that they
had a part in building the country and contributing to its
civilisation.
CITIES
RENAMED
Such as: Shah Pour Harbour to
Imam Khomenie Harbour, Sepah Square to Imam Khomenie Square, Mosque Shah to
Mosque Imam Khomenie, Sepah Street to Imam Khomenie Street, Homuin City to
Khomenie City, Bozorgrah-e Shahyad to Bozorgrah-e Ayatollah, Takht-e-Jamsheed
Street to Ayatollah Taleghani Street etc. (and including many hospitals,
monuments and other constructions).
And at the time of Alexander we
see the same: The so-called cities that had been founded by Alexander in
reality, simply had their names changed; for example, Rayy became Europos, Susa
became Eulaios, Hammadan became Epiphaneia, Shahr-i Qumis became Hecatompylos,
Mithradakirt became Nysa, Farah
became Prophthasia and so on.
There are some that had been named directly after him, such as
Alexandropolis which was Shahr Korush, Alexandria was Abadan, Alexandria was
Arya and so forth.
All evil doers of history seem to
act the same: one day in power and they wish to make believe that they had built
the whole country. For Alexander
and the idea that he built seventy cities, in less than twelve years (of that he
was in battle from the beginning to the end) is not just ridiculous but outright
laughable and amazing that anyone could possibly believe such outrageous
lies.
Just because the Greeks have
renamed seventy towns or cities'
Alexandropolis” is no evidence that he founded the cities or built
them, the latter being impossible,
unless one believes he was actually God!
What
distinguishes Alexander from all other conquerors is his divine
mission”.
Alexander the
Great’
N.G.L.
Hammond
1987 London
Apart from building not cities,
he destroyed those that existed, such as Susa, Takht-e-Jamsheed and Ecbatana,
the three capital cities of ancient Iran.
The most blatant example of this
tactic of lying was the renaming of Takht-e-Jamsheed to Perseptolis’’ (which literally
means Destroyer of Cities’). Takht-e-Jamsheed’ when translate
into English means literally the
Seat of Jamsheed’, while on the other hand the Greek name which the West
has adopted when referring to the site is a deliberate mistranslation from the
poet Aeschylus. (From that name has
come Persepolis’, a corruption of
the Greek by which the Palace has commonly, though incorrectly, been known ever
since.) Therefore it is not only a wrong name
for the Palaces of Kings of Iran but an insult to the history of Iran and the
site. It has been the Greeks the
enemies of Iran who have given it such a name as they have also given other
misleading names such as
Persia’. Persia is the name
of a province (i.e Pars, Fars,) and a tribe (i.e. Persian), and not the name of
the country (i.e Iran, derived from the generic word; Aryan’ used to describe the race of the
country). In the holy Avesta
compiled more than eight thousand years ago the name of the country is recorded
as Iran Veaje’. (Vendidad, Fargard
1: The first of the good lands
and countries which I, AhuraMazda, created, was the Iran Veaje, by the Vanguhi
Daitya.”)
GREEK
ACHIEVEMENTS?
Achievements of others are still,
even today attributed to the unworthy Greeks.
Most Greeks lived lives of
poverty, slavery and violence.
Their civilization was something the world could do well
without.
In fact the ills of today's
Western society can be attributed to them:
Heavy drinking, homosexuality, alcoholism, and a willingness to have fun
at the expense of leading citizens, the Gods, and even sacred ceremonies such as
portrayed in the plays of Aristophanes (6024 AZ=111 IE=448 - 6134 AZ=221 IE=380
BC).
He (the Greek Civilization’) crushed and dismembered
his enemies, as the Romans did in
his footsteps. He exploited,
enslaved and destroyed the native people he conquered, as the West has done in
America and Africa.
The breakup of the Empire by
Alexander was his lasting achievement.
He was unable to keep
together the different nations, a task that the Iranians achieved for around
four hundred years. He destroyed
the only empire that had created a world community capable of living internally
at peace to which to this day the modern world is lacking.
Does it seem justified to make
him a hero for his actions, especially as he spent them all in war, and had no
policy or government established, apart from breaking all rules of
law?
How scholarly is this approach to
history?
Scholars of Ancient history
should complain why so much is written about Alexander, a lone figure in the sea
of history.
|
BACK |
TOP OF PAGE |
FORWARD |