Does Alexander The Great Deserve His Title

1820 Words4 Pages

Does Alexander The Great deserve his title as the great? Some historians say yes, and some historians say no. This is a highly debated topic even today. I feel that Alexander did deserve his title as the great. Sure he may have some flaws but who doesn't? There is nobody that has ever lived that has been perfect. Overall he was an astonishing person. I felt he deserved his title because he was a war genius, he had extended his empire, and he left a legacy on generations after his death. Even though it is possible to find flaws in the God like figure, his achievements and legacy weighs to heavily on our view of him today; enough to the point where we can not challenge his greatness. Alexander the Great deserves his title as the great because …show more content…

Alexander the Great deserved his title because he extended his massive empire, also naming many cities after himself. Alexander the Great had conquered so much land that he was able to name more than 70 cities after himself and one after his horse. Alexander commemorated his conquests by founding dozens of cities (usually built up around previous military forts) which he named Alexandria. I feel that if you are able to name 70 cities after you, your truly great. Also, Alexander was a great conqueror, in 13 short years he amassed the largest empire in the entire ancient world — an empire that covered 3,000 miles. And he did this without the benefit of modern technology and weaponry. Alexander had created the biggest empire ever, even today. He did so without guns. He used spears, shields and arrows to conquer 3,000 miles. He also did this on foot and horse over just 13 years. Even today it would be hard to conquer that much land in 13 years. This is truly an amazing accomplishment. After three grueling years of warfare and three decisive battles, Alexander smashed the Persian armies at the Tigris River and conquered the mighty Persian Empire, including the legendary city of Babylon. The Persian army was the best army at the time, they had been the army to beat. Alexander slowly but surely had …show more content…

He had inherited the finest army in the world from his homicidal father Philip II, Alexander also ‘inherited’ Philip’s outstanding Chief-of-Staff, the 64-year-old Parmenion. People say that he was just lucky to be general of an already great army. They also say that without this luck he wouldn't have been noticed for Great War tactics at all. It's easy for someone with everything to be great. Therefore he never made himself great. Also three of Alexander’s four great victories were achieved against the Persians, a nation that today we would be described as a paper tiger. A paper tiger is something that is weaker than it is portrayed. Persia seemed strong yet they were not. Therefore his greatest battles were against weak empires, making his achievements not so heroic after all. He killed millions of people during his lifetime as he spread his empire all through the eastern hemisphere. People who are great are able to expand without killing people or they just don't kill people in the first place. I can not think of many people who are considered great that have killed anyone. Finally, many of Alexander's policies were failures. He had made his generals marry Persian women to integrate the Macedonians and Persians, but once he died many of his successors exiled, banished, or divorced their Persian wives. His attempts to create a unified Macedonian empire ended

More about Does Alexander The Great Deserve His Title

Open Document