In Andy Orchard’s translation of “The Letter of Alexander to Aristotle,” Alexander’s journey takes him through a new world of amazing wonders and treacherous monsters that he had never known before. Throughout his life and journey, Alexander’s goal was not to conquer and own the whole world, but rather his goal was to explore and discover all of the world he does not already know, with a desire to become all-knowing. However, Alexander’s shallow and reckless tendencies impede his accomplishments of this goal. Alexander desire of discovering it all pushes him to be cruel things and be ruthless if he deems it necessary. Alexander craves knowledge and one of his biggest monsters is the unknown. What he doesn’t know intrigues him, but clearly …show more content…
However, the biggest monster Alexander discovers in India is the news of his upcoming death. Alexander’s paranoia becomes evident when he reveals he doesn’t trust his men and refuses to tell anyone more than his “most trusted friends” (Orchard 11). This shows that Alexander is also a paranoid person in addition to being materialistic, narcissistic, a control-freak, and reckless. After being told that he “shall be sole king and lord of the whole world,” Alexander’s statement that he “achieved less glory than [he] would have wished” (Orchard 11) might come off as surprising to one who thought the goal of his journey was to own the world. However, his admitting to that being less glory than he would have wished proves that he cared less about ruling the whole world but would rather live longer to learn and discover more of the wonders of the unknown.
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
Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.
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
Freeman also spends enough time describing the difficulties and contradictions in the sources of Alexander's story that the reader can gain a sense of what may have happened while also still having a firm grasp of the his opinion of what he thinks is the truth. Some of the other texts briefly touched on the difficulties with the sources and the contradictions between them, but did a poor job conveying the opinion of the author, or the reliability of the various sources. Freeman also spends some time describing the history of Alexander. He touched briefly on Alexander's father, mother, and mentors and how they shaped him and to give a sense of him as a person. Without an understanding of where Alexander came from it is more difficult to gauge the validity of the disparate sources. With an understanding of who Alexander was as a person researchers can better understand his personality and then make better determinations if something seems out of character or not.
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 him. 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.
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, son of Philip of Macedon took the throne at nineteen years of age in 336BCE and with this single event the Hellenic culture abounded. Philip did not want Alexander to be a course and boorish Macedonian so he gave Alexander a tutor, Aristotle. Between Philip and Aristotle, Alexander was raised in the Hellenic culture. The Hellenic culture’s aim was to...
Alexander was a smart man and there was one main person to thank for that, his father. Philip II, knowing that someday his son would be a powerful figure arranged for none other than Aristotle to be Alexander’s tutor. Alexander grew to love his tutor almost as much as his father. Alexander’s favorite book was the Iliad by Homer, it was a story about some of the things he hoped to do when he got older, such as fight in wars. As a youth Alexander also enjoyed hunting and martial arts. Alexander feared that by the time he became king there would be nothing left for him to conquer.
...o hundred thousand murders during Alexander’s reign of terror into account. Alexander the Great was not so great!
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
Alexander the Great was an unmatched General and Strategist. In a battle of the minds he would somewhat always prevail. There are even countries and empires which Alexander the Great has conquered and beat, where he did not lose a single battle or suffer a single defeat. Talk about flawless victory, battles in places such as Syria and Egypt were a mismatch for the infallible Alexander the Great. Like a chess master, Alexander the Great is capable of thinking several steps ahead of his opponents. At the battles of Gaugamela and Hydaspes, “He foresaw precisely the sequence of moves by his own units and the compulsion it would place on his enemies” Even when situations were unsure, Alexander the Great always seemed to know the right course of action
Borza, Eugene N. "Alexander the Great: History and Cultural Politics." Journal of the Historical Society 7.4 (2007): 411-442. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 17 May 2011.
Alexander the Great’s legacy was incredible and will always be remember for its greatness. Historians have portrayed him as a high-minded philosopher; however, others view him as a bloody-minded autocrat that is more interested in his own success than a philosophical theory of the common good. (Mckay, John P. Western Society, a Brief History: From Antiquity to Enlightenment. S.l.: Bedford Bks St Martin 'S, 2009. Print. pg.68) He acquired many accomplishments including developing Greek city-states that thrived even after his death, and he conquered many places in battle. His reign and achievements began a new era that would be called the Hellenistic
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.
Born in the capitol of the Macedonian kingdom, Pella, to King Philip II of Macedon, the conqueror of Greece and Queen Olympias of Epirus, the legendary Alexander the Great, is known as one of history’s most powerful rulers. Striving to become greater than his heroic ancestors, such as Hercules, son of god, Zeus, according to Greek mythology. As arguably the greatest influence on the rise of Hellenism, King Alexander III of Macedon was believed to be “superhuman, destined for greatness from conception.” Growing up under the influence of strict mentors, Alexander progressed into a well-mannered and ambitious adolescent.