Alexander the Great

Futility of his conquests

"Consider how throughout history many a king has sat on his throne as a conqueror. Among them were Hulagü Khán and Tamerlane, who took over the vast continent of Asia, and Alexander of Macedon and Napoleon I, who stretched their arrogant fists over three of the earth's five continents. And what was gained by all their mighty victories? Was any country made to flourish, did any happiness result, did any throne stand? Or was it rather that those reigning houses lost their power? Except that Asia went up in the flame of many battles and fell away to ashes, Changíz's's Hulagü, the warlord, gathered no fruit from all his conquests. And Tamerlane, out of all his triumphs, reaped only the peoples blown to the winds, and universal ruin. And Alexander had nothing to show for his vast victories, except that his son toppled from the throne and Philip and Ptolemy took over the dominions he once had ruled. And what did the first Napoleon gain from subjugating the kings of Europe, except the destruction of flourishing countries, the downfall of their inhabitants, the spreading of terror and anguish across Europe and, at the end of his days, his own captivity? So much for the conquerors and the monuments they leave behind them."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Secret of Divine Civilization, pp. 67-68)

"He ['Abdu'l-Bahá] then gave an account of the history of the kings of the world and concluded with remarks about the death of Alexander.

""When in the city of Zor[City and district of ancient Sumer in southern Babylonia] the lamp of his life was extinguished and the last morn had dawned upon him, the wise men assembled by his corpse. One of them said, `Gracious God! The whole world could not contain this ambitious man yesterday but today a small plot of earth is sufficient to hold him.' Another remarked, `With all his greatness, glory and eloquence of speech, Alexander never advised us in such a manner as he is instructing us today with this silence.' Another said, `A few hours ago this man considered himself the sovereign of the whole world but now it has become evident that he was a servant and a subject.'""

(Mahmúd's Diary, p. 329)

Histories before the time of Alexander the Great are very confused (while the Words of Bahá'ulláh are the standard)

"In a Tablet written in response to questions raised about this Tablet, 'Abdu'l-Bahá clarifies the perspective toward statements made by Bahá'u'lláh in the Lawh-i-Hikmat which differ from the current concepts of western historians. The Master states that histories of the times before Alexander the Great are very confused and that when the subject came under scholarly discipline in later times the greatest difficulty was, and still is, experienced in giving dates with any certainty. He further points out that the Words of Bahá'u'lláh are the standard and that the statements made in the Tablet of Wisdom are in accordance with certain of the historical records of the East."

("Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian", in the section "Bahá'í Writings Based in Fact?")

"The histories of the times before Alexander the Great tend to be very confused and unreliable, and even when the field of history "became an orderly and systematized discipline", the problem of giving precise dates for events in the remote past remained a difficulty"

(Memorandum Prepared by the Research Department at the Instruction of the Universal House of Justice on Socrates)

"Our purpose is to show that even in Scriptural history, the most outstanding of all histories, there are contradictions as to the time when the great ones lived, let alone as to dates related to others. And furthermore, learned societies in Europe are continually revising the existing records, both of East and West. In spite of this, how can the confused accounts of peoples dating from before Alexander be compared with the Holy Text of God? If any scholar expresses astonishment, let him be surprised at the discrepancies in Scriptural history."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablet from the Persian, in a compilation on Socrates, 2)

"As to what thou didst ask regarding the history of the philosophers: history, prior to Alexander of Greece, is extremely confused, for it is a fact that only after Alexander did history become an orderly and systematized discipline. One cannot, for this reason, rely upon traditions and reported historical events that have come down from before the days of Alexander. This is a matter thoroughly established, in the view of all authoritative historians. How many a historical account was taken as fact in the eighteenth century, yet the opposite was proved true in the nineteenth. No reliance, then, can be placed upon the traditions and reports of historians which antedate Alexander, not even with regard to ascertaining the lifetimes of leading individuals."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablet from the Persian, in a compilation on Socrates, 2)

"The histories prior to Alexander, which were based on oral accounts current among the people, were put together later on. There are great discrepancies among them, and certainly they can never hold their own against Holy Writ. It is an accepted fact among historians themselves that these histories were compiled after Alexander, and that prior to his time history was transmitted by word of mouth. Note how extremely confused was the history of Greece, so much so that to this day there is no agreement on the dates related to the life of Homer, Greece's far-famed poet. Some even maintain that Homer never existed at all, and that the name is a fabrication."

(`Abdu'l-Bahá, Tablet from the Persian, in a compilation on Socrates, no. 2)

"When asked about the statements in the Lawh-i-Hikmat, `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote, in a Tablet addressed to Miss Ethel Rosenberg, that the histories of the times before Alexander the Great are very confused, and that the Words of Bahá'ulláh are the standard. He adds that the statements made in the Tablet of Wisdom are in accordance with certain of the historical records of the East."

(10 September 1978 from the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, in a compilation on Socrates, no. 15)

"In a Tablet written in response to questions raised about this Tablet, `Abdu'l-Bahá clarifies the perspective toward statements made by Bahá'u'lláh in the Lawh-i-Hikmat which differ from the current concepts of western historians. The Master states that histories of the times before Alexander the Great are very confused and that when the subject came under scholarly discipline in later times the greatest difficulty was, and still is, experienced in giving dates with any certainty. He further points out that the Words of Bahá'u'lláh are the standard and that the statements made in the Tablet of Wisdom are in accordance with certain of the historical records of the East."

(3 November 1987, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, in a compilation on Socrates, no. 16)