Plutach tried to describe a factual history, but he wrote it some 400 years after Alexander's reign and so you could hardly call him an eyewitness. It is also uncertain what exact source material he had available and how accurate and contemporary that was. What we do know is that he modelled Alexander's character much on that of Julius Caesar, whom he admired. Modern historians have doubts on several points of fact in Plutarchus' account, but it is the only detailed history of Alexander we have and there is supporting evidence for much of what he writes.
The Book of Arda Viraf was written even more than 700 years after that of Plutarch and it is not even an attempt at factual history writing, but "the dream-journey of a devout Zoroastrian" called Wiraz (or Viraz, or Wiraf) who very probably was not even a real person. If we have doubts about the amount of hard evidence at the basis of Plutarch's history, we can at least double or triple those doubts for the Book of Arda Viraf written some one thousand years after Alexander's exploits. Alexander stands there accused of "destroying" Persia and its culture but that is certainly incorrect. Alexander loved the Persian culture and the trappings of the Oriental veneration for its monarch, which he now came to enjoy. The scriptures that he is said to have destroyed only came in written form long after his death and until then, were only oral history.
But regardless of the book's very shaky factual foundation, it represents a Persian point of view that was in consequence hostile to Alexander. Plutarch also had the disadvantage of writing long after Alexander lived (and he did also admire him) but in all probability his acces to Greek and Macedonian source material was infinitely better than that of the writer of the Book of Arda.
Most simply, Plutarch wrote from the perspective of the victorious civilization (Macedonian Greece) and "Wiraz" wrote from the perspective of the defeated civilization (Achaemenid Persia).
Yes, it was taken in as part of the Persian expansion westwards.
Answer 1As the Mongols settled in, they became Muslims themselves, so Islam was greatly expanded by the conquest.Answer 2One of the main results of the Mongol Conquests was the defeat of the Abbassid Caliphate and the razing of Baghdad. The attacks of the Mongol Khan Hülegü against the Arabs are viewed by many Muslims to be one of the worst events in their entire history.
After the war, the power of the federal government did greatly increase.
The Suez Canal, a man-made waterway in Egypt, greatly increased trade for Britain in India.
Greatly
Cyrus the Great was the ruler who greatly extended Persian Empire. He was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire.
Yes, it was taken in as part of the Persian expansion westwards.
It did greatly, turning the Delian League it had led into an empire of its own.
A genuine persian rug runner cost around two hundred dollars. It can, however, vary greatly depending on the ize of the rug.
The Persian empire invented Algebra, Astronomy, Anthropology, the battery (called the Parthian battery) the greatly contributed to geometry. they also created human rights (freedom of religion, racial equality, no slavery, minimum wage, equality between men and women, etc.) they invented the modern numerical system, greatly contributed to medicine, and were the first to use philosophy.
To the people involved, soldiers and civilians, it was important to them as it affected their lives greatly. In the grand sweep of thousands of years of history, it was just another in the thousands of wars which the human race seems intent on inflicting on itself.
Aphrodite was said to have been born from the foam of the sea. She was involved with Jason (of Argonaut fame) as she was asked to interfere on behalf of Jason by Hera. Aphrodite caused Medea, the daughter of the King of Colchis, to fall in love with Jason and it helped him greatly in his conquests.
It varied greatly. Some writings glorified the virtues of the Romans, the splendour of its buildings and the Roman conquests. Some were nostalgic of the good old days. Some were moralistic. Some were critical of Roman society (particularly the satires) or of some of the ruler.
The combined strengths of the Greek city-states matched the Persian strength on both sea and land. The Persian strengths have been greatly overstated by historians who have used the overall Persian strength rather than the forces the employed on campaigns. The Persian army was about 180,000, but after their navy was defeated at Salamis they had to send half that army home as they could not supply them by sea, and the countryside was too poor to support them all. This meant the sides were about equal, the Greeks had the benefit of their infantry being armoured, and the operated in rough ground to avoid the superior Persian cavalry.
Athens established an empire out of the coalition of Greek cities it led in the latter stages of the Persian War. This power led it into conflict with the other Greek city-states led by Sparta, Athens was defeated and lost its empire. Greece was greatly weakened, leading to its takeover by a rising Macedonia led by Philip II.
he was the first to use precise narrative of event
The expeditions of Hernan Cortes resulted in the conquest of the Aztec Empire in present-day Mexico. Francisco Pizarro's expeditions led to the conquest of the Inca Empire in present-day Peru. Both conquests greatly expanded Spanish influence in the Americas.