Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay outline on alexander the great impact on society and culture
The success of Alexander the Great
The success of Alexander the Great
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 inherited an impressive military from his father and a stable kingdom; he also followed his father’s plans to invade Asia. Does this detract from his own accomplishments with the Macedonian army? I would argue that it does not. It does not matter how large his or how well trained his standing army had been, there can be no success without some form of military leadership. Alexander began his military campaign and his rule much where his father left off. Whether or not it was his aim, this created a sense of normality for the men that was part of his father’s regime. Alexander’s position as a warrior-king who stood side-by-side among his men also served to create respect among his peers. Gradually, as Alexander conquered more Persian land, he began to adopt the policies of Persian rulers. Alexander’s change in policy extended beyond just political roles, he gave consideration to the local gods in many of the lands that he conquered. Eventually, Alexander brought people in from the conquered nations to serve under him. It is unknown whether Alexander intended to adopt these practices; if he adopted the policies that he liked; or if he adopted policies for political purposes. No matter his intentions, Alexander’s changes in leadership pol... ... middle of paper ... ...here are few people in history that can claim the military prowess, uncanny political maneuvering, and the overall lasting effect of the dissemination of a particular culture such as Alexander. Alexander’s exploits led to the spread of the Greek culture throughout Asia and Africa. They even went so far as to impact the Romans who dominated Hellenistic Egypt. He left in his wake and expansion of territory and commerce, with expanded trading ports and the exportation of the Greek political system. Christianity emerged with the Hellenization of the Jews and spread throughout Hellenized gentile communities. It seems impossible to catalogue every impact of Alexander’s empire. In the end, I have to conclude that Alexander does ‘fully deserve’ the title of “the Great.” Works Cited Worthington, Ian. Alexander The Great: A Reader. New York: Routledge, 2012.
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 inflicted by them fell on friend no less than foe, with men trampled under as the beast twisted and turned. 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.
The son of Philip II, Alexander the Great, will become the conqueror of the western world. Alexander received the Macedonian empire when his father passed, he was only twenty at the time. As soon as he had the power of the Macedonian army, several lightning fast campaigns led them into the west and north. Next, he compelled the city-states that rebelled against the League of Corinth. This action demonstrated how Alexander punished disloyalty [Martin 244]. Alexander was able to keep his rule on the territories he conquered by rewarded the cities who recognized his powers and punished the individuals that betrayed his trust or ambitions. The power he possessed depended on his superior force and his unwillingly desire to use it [Martin 245]. The
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 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...
This letter from Alexander is a critique of Alexander’s character and methods, along with the misconception that his goal in this journey was to conquer. Prior knowledge of Alexander would make one believe he is a strong leader on the hunt for conquering more and ruling the world, but this letter debunks that belief. The Old English translator manipulates aspects of the letter, emphasizing events that highlight Alexander’s negative qualities, and makes Alexander’s quest for knowledge and discovery appear more prominent and important to him than his quest to conquer and
Alexander The Great , With the courage of a tiger and the ferocity of a Lion, Alexander III swept through Eastern Europe and Asia. Alexander the Great as he would be called was believed to a descendant of the God's! He was a military genius because his battles throughout Asia Minor, against Darius, the King of the Empire of Persia, would bring him fame, fortune, and eternal glorification as the greatest king to have ruled in all of history. The Macedonian king's level of intelligence, the amount of land that he acquired, and the fact that he was a military genius, is some of the most important aspects to the life of Alexander the Great.
In the book, the reader encounters a well-researched biography that relays the life and times of Alexander in a simple but informative manner. Just as in his earlier works, however, Freeman succeeds at bringing Alexander’s egotistic, intelligent, and inspirational journey through life to the reader in an engaging manner that takes a unique approach to relaying the same information available in other resources. In essence, Freeman’s interest in this historical figure’s life is evident in the way he describes the battles that Alexander fought, as well as the contribution that he made to turning society into what it is today. From the book, the reader can discern the complex traditions that people practice and begin to understand the role that historical interactions played in their formation. Therefore, Philip Freeman’s Alexander the Great succeeds in providing an engaging and emphatic portrayal of one of the greatest historical figures and the part that their desires played in changing the
Whether or not Alexander was “great” or not “great” has been a question debated throughout history. Alexander the Great lived from 356 to 323 B.C. As the King of Greece, he conquered much of Asia and Europe. In order to be great, one needs to be disciplined, care for others, and be intelligent. By these standards, Alexander was great because he was disciplined and persevered, he cared about his followers, and he had strong military tactics.
These are some good examples of why Alexander has the word great in his name. His people stuck by to support him and help him get through the lands and persevere through challenges. His divine influence was inspirational to him and he needed it to keep trying his hardest. He is known by many people from the amazing things he has done to this world. Alexander the Great is definitely a man that we should all honor and
He demonstrated his ability to be a successful commander through multiple occasions and battles. One of these battles includes the Battle of Granicus River. In Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, Plutarch recalled that when Alexander and his soldiers came across the Granicus River, his soldiers were extremely afraid to cross over the river banks since they feared that the river was too deep and the banks were too rough for them to climb. Alexander demonstrated to his fellow soldiers that they had nothing to fear since he crossed over the river himself and successfully climbed up the river banks. He was able to inspire his men to continue to fight even though they demonstrated a lack of motivation and courage. Furthermore, he showed his perseverance and determination as a commander when he and the Macedonian soldiers faced against Darius and the Persian army. According to Arian in The Anabasis of Alexander, Alexander has only 160 naval ships while Darius had almost double the amount with 300 naval ships. Despite this huge setback with the lack of naval strength, Alexander still emerged victorious in the battle against Darius. It is evident that Alexander has to have great military skills to be able to train his soldiers well enough to defeat a much larger enemy. The soldiers have to be a strong cohesive unit, and that isn’t possible without a commander who possesses great
Alexander the Great established the largest empire of his time. He encouraged the spread of Greek culture throughout his empire, becoming the basis for the Hellenistic Age following his death. Despite his military strength, does Alexander deserve to be called ‘Great?’ While Hammond believes that Alexander should be called ‘Great’, Worthington has stronger evidence to support his claim that Alexander does not deserve the title ‘Great.’
In his 15 years of conquest, Alexander never lost a battle. He conquered many territories, for example the great Persian Empire, united the east and west, and saw all of the possibilities that were available. Alexander was truly great, and created history because he not only united many cultures or establishing his own colonies but he saw what was possible and set out to achieve it.
You mentioned some great key qualities that are related to Alexander the Great. He definitely made an impact on civilization throughout his lifetime. One of the more interesting points, in my view, that people may not associate with him is the spreading of various cultures. Though he did conquer a vast amount of land, he also spread various attributes to the Greek culture throughout the areas he conquered. Some historians believe that spreading Greek culture was the purpose of his reign (Duiker and Spielvogel). You also brought up some intriguing points about what the great means and how Alexander the Great might not have actually been great. A reason that he might not be considered great is the methods he used to conquer land;
In conclusion, I believe Alexander is one of the best political leader and the best general in the history. He managed to conquer and govern a huge territory with his wisdom. He didn’t win wars with soldiers, he won with strategy. Without a question, he was the most successful leader in the history. He knew how t rule and how to make people obedient and it is the main reason that he was very influential. These qualities made him live forever in stories, epics, and
For example, due to the fact that he created amazing battle strategies he was then considered the greatest military leader. He was also credited with the spread of Greek culture and education throughout his great empire. In other words, in his great leadership he also advanced the Greek education and culture along with his militaristic skills. In addition in the text it reveals, “From an early age he was always an achiever, having always done well with his studies…” This quote portrays that his education was an essential role in his life which made him into a great leader. His fighting forces also proved how strong he was as the text states, “Many died along the way but Alexander managed to maintain great fighting forces…” His great fighting forces also gave him a reputation of leading his men to the battle in an impressive speed. As you can see, many individuals believe that Alexander had the abilities and qualities of being