Alexander the Great is looked at in two different ways, good and bad. In my opinion this young Macedonian king did not earn his title. Although Alexander was considerate to some Persians, and religious customs and architecture, he was still a terrible man. While conquering his empire, he manage to mindlessly kill troops, servants/peasants, and sell innocent citizens for his own personal gain.…
Alexander, born as Alexandros, son of King Philip I of Macedon and his wife Olympias, could be considered great due to the fact that he was an incredible leader, forming the largest empire in all of history. The creation of his empire was a journey toward anti-racism, uniting people from the Balkan Mountains to the Indus River and encouraging them to work together and find peace. However, due to the fact that controlling such a large empire was difficult and impossible to do alone, his temper was vindictive. This caused fear amongst his people as he ordered those who refused to obey him to be executed. Despite the fact that this was a negative approach in controlling his people, he also had other methods, such as the promotion of Greek ideals, thoughts, and cultures. This eventually brought peace to the land, leading to a mix of cultures as people intermingled and goods were traded. Furthermore, he allowed his people to keep their normal traditions only asking them to be loyal to him which is why he was such a successful leader and is known as great.…
Document C illustrates how Alexander was able to defeat the Tyre which was a self proclaimed “unconquerable city” because it was built on an island protected with high walls. “ The great city…. Was now utterly destroyed. Her king, Azimilik, and various other notables, including envoys from carthage, had taken refuge in the temple of Melkart, and Alexander spared their lives. The remaining survivors, some 30,000 in numbers, he sold into slavery, Two thousand men of military age were crucified.” (Doc C) Although some might argue he isn't great because the deaths of two thousand military man are quite brutal he did it out of pure leadership in order to finish the battle he started. Alexander stepped up as a leader and was able to lead men into a battle and defeat the unconquerable city. Also In Document C, another battle or march, Alexander shows leadership, “Alexander had ordered that all [expect] those who sought sanctuary were to be slain” (Document C). This shows Alexander was great by leadership because he made the big decision for his troops on what to follow out, even though it was a rough game plan, he stepped up and took charge.…
Primary source 3 shows that Alexander was one of the best known military leaders in ancient history. He was an amazing military leader, his military was well organized. Alexander lead his army from the front and encircled the persians with the cavalry while the infantry pressed forward at the persians, his tactic was very successful. Alexander inspired his soldiers to overcome incredible odds, facing armies vastly larger, marching into the unknown. He invented new formations, and used his battlefield successes to accomplish his strategic goals. He was more successful than any of the other "great"…
Alexander had done many “great” things throughout his lifetime. But behind all of that, he was a vicious, cruel, soulless and murderous villain. He was a greedy, horrible leader. Alexander the Great was not great at all; he was a voracious and hardhearted less than a human being. He did a great deal of things that would be frowned upon today. For example, Alexander slaughtered innocent and holy men. He also treated his troops with disrespect and disregard. Furthermore, he was a reckless and negligent typical military leader.…
Alexander the Great was a powerful and wise military leader. His knowledge of the battle field led him to many victories; yet many of his battles ended very bloody for both sides. However, he did this for the good of his people and empire. Alexander the Great is the “great” king and military leader that many people perceive him as because he is wise, merciful, and willing to learn about different cultures.…
Greatness is an umbrella term that can hold several different meanings and interpretations. In the case of Alexander the Great, it has a very specific meaning that reflects upon the achievements and success of his life time, despite the many character flaws and failings he undoubtedly possessed. Alexander the Great definitely deserves this appellation for three main reasons. Firstly, he conquered an incredibly vast area for his young age and lack of experience; secondly he left his mark on society which has lasted till contemporary day; and thirdly he completely revolutionized military techniques and styles.…
Many people think that Alexander the Great was truly great because of all his accomplishments, but not all of the things he did were great. He did lots of cruel things to people and animals just because he wanted to gain more power. Alexander has killed approximately 100,000 people only in four major battles (Alexander’s Legacy Doc E). Alexander was a prince who was born in macedonia of 356 BC. Alexander was very arrogant. He was taught by a philosopher Aristotle. He taught him subjects like, politics, sports, and warfare. Philip, Alexander’s father built the macedonian army into a deadly fighting machine, this sparked alexander’s interest and was eager to to lead the army. And Alexander got his chance to lead at the age of 20, because Philip…
Alexander the Great was a king and conqueror. He is commonly referred to as “the most powerful leader of all time.” What is it that makes him such a powerful leader? What has he accomplished that has made him so significant? Were his accomplishments positive or negative? These are all questions that when combined as one create a debate that has been going on for decades. There are those who admire Alexander’s military achievements and ability to carve out the largest empire the world has seen. Then there are those who perceive him as a selfish, cruel madman with drinking problems. This paper will outline the different sides taken on Alexander and the question as to what his significance/influence was and whether it was good or bad.…
Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia was undoubtedly one of the most powerful and influential leaders in history. His unprecedented control over his military as well as a strong economic backbone enabled him to conquer the majority of the known civilization. He ruled with fear and conquered through strength. Yet when taking a step back and categorizing great leaders, does “Alexander the Great” truly top the charts; or is his name the foundation of a faulty reputation?…
Alexander the Great was a war leader, who fought countless battles over his life to gain control of Greece. Alexander sought out to bring a Hellenistic Culture to the new world. But the main underlying problem with Alexander the Great was the fact that he was politically weak, he knew how to fight battles but wasn’t competent enough to necessarily run an empire. He was a cocky leader mainly due to his warlike valor, “founding dozens of new cities named after himself”, (Pollard 199). Alexander the Great did not just want to just rule the Greeks, he wanted to build essentially a whole new world. Many of his most trusted soldiers had thought that, “he has gone too far, and mutinies at tributaries began to take place”, (Pollard 197). This is a prime example that Donald Trump must realize when running the United States. As good as Alexander the Great was at fighting battles and taking over territories, he was just not adequate enough to successfully rule the nation as a whole. Shortly after Alexander died it, “brought on the collapse of the regime he had personally held together”, (Pollard 199). Overall, Alexander the Greats short reign as leader had some bright spots, but he wasn’t the type of person you would like to head a…
Alexander had a strong ego beginning at birth. Even from the cradle, his mother taught him that he was a god, so he grew up believing it was true. There were many reasons why Alexander’s mother believed him to be a god. When he was born, earthquakes shook the ground, there was a comet, two eagles perched, and lightning a temple and burned it to the ground.…
After Alexander the great died, he was given the title "the great" due to his success in conquering Europe. People thought he made many great to change Europe. Was that really the reason he was given the title the great? What goals do you have to achieve in order you can receive the tile of "the great"? Someone great should be a leader that contributed to the society greatly and made a significant achievement to change the world and make the way we live today better. He should be someone who is respected by others and also pays respect to others. One should be also kind hearted. Alexander did succeed those goals therefore, should not receive the title "the great".…
Secondly, Alexander was arrogant and cocky. “Alexander believed himself to be Achilles’s descendant.” (Document A). Alexander also believed “...that he himself was a god.” (Background Essay). How incredibly arrogant and full of yourself do you have to be do have such incredibly high standards for yourself? How does that make him a “great” man? Someone who is known to be “great” normally wouldn’t have an ego the size of Texas. They are much more modest than…
The not so great part was married to 3 women, killing most of his men, and as a theory, killing his dad too. Those things didn’t matter a lot to them though. Alexander the Great died by a fever that was never cured in June, 323 B.C.E. He was allied with many cities and conquered many cities. He took some troops on the way. He got lots of supplies to continue his journey and weapons too. Shortly before he died he was supposedly asked to whom his empire should and their answer was said “to the strongest man.” His generals fought over his land and it ended up dividing up into multiple…