Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Alexander the great not so great
Historical accounts of alexander the great
Alexander the great not so great
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Alexander the great not so great
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”. The first reason why Alexander lll wasn’t great is because he didn’t show concern for others. In document B it states “Porus’ elephants were now boxed in, and the damage In document E it states “Years that it took Alexander to build his empire-11 Years that Alexander’s empire held together after his death-10” Alexander the “great” doesn’t show any intelligence because he forgot to make a will with an heir for his empire leaving it confused and aggressive because no one knew who was going to rule. Many small government officials took pieces of land changing the laws and affecting the citizens in big ways. Ten years later the empire fell apart leaving people with many burdens. Alexander left his empire after he died in a big mess, hoping someone could help it. This was unsmart because even though death might not be expected, it is always important to create a will with as much at stake as there was in Alexander’s situation. In summary, Alexander was not smart because he wasn’t able to think ahead to help his empire stay strong. In conclusion, Alexander the Great wasn’t great because he didn’t care for other people, didn’t show leadership or any smarts. Many may say that he was an amazing person who did incredible things with the support of the people. However, if you look closely at his actions you could clearly see his reasoning of greed and power. He killed many innocent people to make his dream of controlling the world come true. Before giving someone a title or name it’s important that we make sure it makes sense and fits their
Alexander believed he was a divine mediator for the world. In other words, he believed he was chosen by god to solely lead the world. Thus, Arrian wanted to emphasize Alexander's arrogance because he believed that he was god-like and should rule over everyone. Furthermore, after Alexander’s death, he still had extravagant plans for his empire. Alexanders wanted ridiculous projects to be completed. He wanted to build one thousand war ships to fight the Carthaginians and other African nations, and create cities and populate them with his people in Europe and Asia to expand his empire. In Diodorus’ Alexander’s Last Plans, He explains Alexander’s final wishes from a realistic standpoint. Diodorus writes, “When theses plans had been read, the Macedonians, although they applauded the name of Alexander, nevertheless saw that the projects were extravagant and decided to carry out none of those that had been mentioned.” Diodorus emphasized that Alexander believed his people should continue to follow him and his beliefs long after his death. The projects in Alexander's will spoke about were time consuming, and extravagant. Furthermore, many people did not share Alexanders beliefs of world
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
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 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.
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
Alexander was Great because of his leadership. When Alexander went into battle, he used lots of complicated strategies to win. Due to the teachings of Aristotle, he was a force to reckoned with. One example comes from Doc B.The battle was set in India, against a king named Porus. He had more than 30 elephants under his control. The one thing that separated them was a shallow river. The document tells us that he would “Take his cavalry to various positions along the river bank where he would create a clamor… This went on for quite a time until Porus no longer reacted” Alexander used great strategy to outsmart his enemy.
Alexander the Great is hailed, by most historians, as “The Great Conqueror” of the world in the days of ancient Mesopotamia. “Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BCE. His parents were Philip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and Alexander inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom. He quickly dealt with his enemies at home and reasserted Macedonian power within Greece. He then set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire” (Web, BBC History). It is important to note, which will maybe explain his brutal actions, that Alexander was only twenty years old when he became the king of Macedonia. “When he was 13, Philip hired the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be Alexander’s personal tutor. During the next three years Aristotle gave Alexander training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy, all of which became of importance in Alexander’s later life” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). “In, 340, when Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and invaded Thrace, he left his 16 years old son with the power to rule Macedonia in his absence as regent, but as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled and posed a danger to the country. Alexander assembled an army, led it against the rebels, and with swift action defeated the Maedi, captured their stronghold, and renamed it after himself to Alexandropolis. Two years later in 338 BC, Philip gave his son a commanding post among the senior gener...
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 the Great is a villain because he killed many people. He was labelled as a villain because he killed tons of innocent people that didn’t deserve it. According to A hero’s hero- alexander and achilles, “Here was a man, who walked in flesh and blood, a man who went on to conquer the whole world before he was thirty-two”(1). This proves he is a villain because it states that he would walk in flesh and blood just to get what he wants if it was for the better or for the worse and also a true leader would not kill innocent people just to get what he wanted even if it did not have a good impact. According to the John Maxwell Company, “Alexander
First, Alexander the Great is a villain because he caused the destruction of his own empire. Throughout his reign as king, he was constantly asked to name a successor to take over the empire if something happened to him, but Alexander always refused. Alexander needed to name a successor to keep his empire going, but he “both refused to provide one, and killed off any man who could be seen as one…” (The John Maxwell Company). Alexander was so determined to stay in control of his empire that he killed any man who he thought could be seen as his successor. He cared more about himself and his power than his empire and it’s success. When
Alexander the Great is deserving of his name in a sense of battle. Alexander is undeserving of this title in the sense of respect and kindness for his people and other city-states. Alexander was not shy when it came down to war, he was ready to go whenever even if his military was not or did not agree with him.
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
Countless historians and other scholars believe Alexander the Great really was great. Although, a number of historians think the exact opposite. There is a great deal of evidence to support both thoughts. I firmly believe that Alexander was in fact, great. He deserves the title. To begin with, Alexander was well educated as a child. From a young age, he was well-purposed and remarkably observant. In fact, he was able to train a horse no other man could. Alexander used his observant manner to do so. At the ripe age of sixteen Alexander managed to defeat Maedi while his father was away taking care of important business. He was actually the first to charge Thebans' band in the Battle of Chaeronea. At the youthful age of 20, Alexander became King.
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).