Does a “great” ruler slaughter thousands of innocent men, and commit heinous crimes in a drunken rage? Alexander the “great” was a greedy man that had a humongous ego and a lack of empathy that lived from 356 to 323 BCE. The only reason this man was considered “great” was because he expanded the greek empire from Macedonia, into Asia and The Middle East. Are the merits of “greatness” the value of the things that a man has achieved? He killed over 100,000 innocent men in battle and crucified and sold over 30,000 innocent people that weren’t even fighting. A ruler that killed his own brother is not worthy of the throne. Alexander The “Great” did not live up to his title; he truly should have been granted the title “horrible”. Alexander killed …show more content…
But, in reality, his countless massacres of innocents quickly wash over that farcical statement; he was also the one that brought upon the fall of his own empire. Alexander murdered his most trusted general, Parmenio, after he suggested that Alexander focused on strengthening his empire instead of conquering more land. ( ). Alexander wouldn’t even take Parmenio’s suggestion, the very one that could save his empire, and killed him just because he didn’t favor it. A ruler that doesn’t accept negative feedback is a true tyrant. Although not a tyrant, Alexander was on the edge of becoming one. Alexander did not fortify his empire, thus, it fell apart shortly after his death. (Dr. Ellis L., Alexander the Great: After Alexander, europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/14.shtml). Although Alexander was renowned for his sophisticated military tactics, he lacked the diplomatic and political skills to actually rule his land. As Alexander’s empire was only held together by himself, and because he named no heir, he brought upon the end of his empire, launching its inhabitants into civil war. A ruler should not only be judged by his military power but also, if not mostly, their political and diplomatic
Alexander the Great has been considered for centuries as a military genius and influenced conquerors such as Hannibal the Carthaginian, the Romans Pompey, Caesar and Napoleon. Although, he inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army, Alexander was capable to display his leadership and military capabilities. In 338 B.C., his father, King Phillip II, gave Alexander a commanding post among the senior generals as the Ma...
The first matter to consider is what constitutes “greatness”. There are no set standards no checklist, to apply to a person, to determine it they are “great.” The simplest way that I could conceive to decide whether this title should apply to Alexander was to determine if he was, in some way, superior to the rulers that came before or after his reign. The most obvious place for me to start my consideration is with Alexander’s vast accomplishments as a conquerer.
Alexander believed in a strong national government and he feared a weak government that the people could overthrow. If we lived in Syria or any other war-torn country right now, it would be the complete opposite because Alexander’s views are different from theirs. Though he had changed his views a few times, it seems that his final opinion was one that he truly believed in. In our country now, his
Darius had an advantage over Alexander the Great, he had more troops, better resources, and he chose the battle field. Although Darius had the advantage he was not as smart as Alexander. Alexander had good communication with his troops; he planned according, in addition he was well organized before the battled. He did not stray away from his plan he stuck to it. Alexander troops were heavily armed they moved in formation, and they were shield with their long spears they stayed close together and moved in formation. In addition he did not have all his troops engaged in the battle at once he planned an awesome attack strategy that won him and his troops the war.
...f the conquered territories to remain relatively unchanged, Alexander was able to subdue potential unrest before it occurred. However, Alexander’s rule was not without discord though. Many Machiavellian actions for the good of the empire were seen as unsavory to a select few. While this created some distrust, Alexander’s power and governing expertise were enough to overcome these adversities. Because of the characteristics mentioned above, Alexander the Great is as close to a true Machiavellian ruler as humanly possible.
Have you heard of a man named Alexander the Great, the famous historical figure? There are many amazing stories about him explaining the courageous things he had accomplished. However, if you learn more about him and his accomplishments you will soon realized the real person Alexander was. Alexander the Great, ruler of his empire was in fact not great as his title states. The definition of great is a person who shows concern for others, has leadership and shows intelligence. Alexander didn’t show any of these characteristics therefore he doesn’t deserve the title of “great”.
(Alexander the Great - Hero or Villain?) Some of these deaths he caused when he and his army “went on some ‘killing sprees’ to smaller towns and killed or enslaved everyone in the town”. (Alexander the Great - Hero or Villain?) Alexander really was a villain because he deliberately caused the death of 250,000 people. Some of these victims were innocent, and Alexander only killed them to gain more power and wealth. He might have even killed these people just because he was bored. Killing nearly 250,000 people just to gain more power is almost a definition of being a
In the countries who believed Alexander was the son of the devil or the devil himself, will say he is not ‘great’ but a demon who did evil. The countries who were on his side would say he was the greatest conqueror to live. He began as a Macedonian cavalry commander at eighteen, king of Macedonia at twenty, conqueror of Persia at twenty-six and explorer of India at thirty [Foner and Garraty]. The amount of large scale accomplishments he managed to finish in a span of six years is astonishing. Alexander’s tomb was the largest tourist attraction in the ancient world. The tomb was even visited by Julius Caesar, Pompey, Caligula, and Augustus. Alexander the Great’s accomplishments set a bar in which provided a standard that all other leaders would match their careers too. Many leaders after Alexander could not reach the standard left by him [Foner and
Alexander the Great:An Analysis Thesis:Alexander the Great is a villain because Alexander the Great murdered and tortured people for no reason,he also took over cities against their own will. Alexander the Great is a villain because Alexander the Great murdered and tortured many people. This man came to civilizations and Alexander the Great took them under his rule,if one did not follow one were tortured. He also killed people just as a warning that Alexander the Great actually wasn't dead. According to Alexander the not so great Paragraph 3 page 2 “Persians also condemn him for the widespread destruction Alexander the Great is thought to have encouraged to cultural and religious sites throughout the empire.”
Alexander the Great is great because of his remarkable achievement which helped to create a long lasting legacy. Alexander started to build his empire in 334 BCE after taking the new role as the king. It only took eleven years to build an empire that was large and lasted several years. In addition, the empire Alexander created stretched over 2,200,000 square miles becoming bigger than the United States (Alexander’s Empire Doc. A) (Alexander’s Legacy Doc, E). This proves that Alexander the Great is great because although the process was eleven long years to make a strong empire, Alexander wasn’t willing to give up and
...o hundred thousand murders during Alexander’s reign of terror into account. Alexander the Great was not so great!
Few historical figures stand out in the same degree as that of Alexander the Great. He was a warrior by 16, a commander at age 18, and was crowned King of Macedon by the time he was 20 years old. He did things in his lifetime that others could only dream about. Alexander single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in just over a decade. There were many attributes that made Alexander “Great.” He was a brilliant strategist and an inspired leader; he led by example and was a conqueror at heart. In looking at his early childhood, accession to the throne, conquests, marriage, and death one can see why Alexander the Great is revered in historical contexts as one of the greatest figures of all time.
Alexander the Great is undoubtedly one of the most famous leaders and Kings in our history. This one man miraculously led his armies into countless battles and created an empire nearly as large as the Roman Empire. Men and women all over the world have clearly heard of the amazing things that Alexander accomplished in his times; however, the question of whether his deeds were heroic or villainous still remains. To answer this question, Alexander the Great was unmistakably a villain.
There are many leaders in the world, but a great ruler is passionate, honorable and one who can inspire even in the most hopeless circumstances. Alexander the Great was a great ruler. Alexander the Great was a ruler that was not only inspiring, but he was fearless, smart, bold and courageous. Alexander the Great inspired his soldiers to crave more. He has inspired people since the day he started ruling. What is inspirational about Alexander the Great is that he inspired his troops to the point that they did not question him when they were outnumbered three to one in a battle, they trusted him with their lives and were willing to die for him (Alexander the Great: man behind the legend).
Have you ever wondered why Alexander from Macedonia is called Alexander the Great. According to history, it is because he is the most glorious general in the history who conquered Persia, Greece, Egypt and Babylon in a very inexperienced age. He became the commander of Macedonian armies at age eighteen and the king of Macedonia at age twenty. After six years of preparation, he conquered the great Persian empire. Unfortunately, he died at age thirty-three. He would have conquered many lands if he hadn’t died at a such young age. He was a legend and an icon for great kings like Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, and Pompey. World’s most famous generals tried to compete with him but they couldn’t accomplish. After years, his tomb