More handpicked essays just for you.
“Alexander the Great: Two Contrasting Views”
“Alexander the Great: Two Contrasting Views”
“Alexander the Great: Two Contrasting Views”
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Since antiquity there has been much debate about whether Alexander the Great was a conqueror seeking to gain as much territory as possible or a visionary leader who intended to change the world. The massive campaigns that he engaged in, the fragmented government of his empire and the customs he chose to incorporate in his empire and reign all shed light on this question. From this evidence it is easy to see that the main goal of Alexander the Great was conquest rather than changing the world.
Alexander’s many prolonged campaigns show that the ruler’s highest priority was not changing the world, but conquest. His “last plans” are just one example of this. After returning to Mesopotamia he intended to go into the western Mediterranean “as far
…show more content…
as the Pillars of Heracles” where he intended to conquer the Carthaginians as well as other peoples from Libya and Iberia (281). Seeing that the Carthaginians were a major naval power, this would have been a massive undertaking for Alexander, as evidenced by the sheer number of ships he was planning to have built for the campaign (281). While he was planning these campaigns in the west, he was neglecting the problems that were beginning to appear in the territories he already possessed. After his return from India, Alexander had to have eight of his satraps and generals removed due to the fact that they began to exploit his prolonged absence in order to benefit themselves (AG 464). Clearly his empire was too new and fragile to allow Alexander to be on campaign for extended periods of time. A campaign to the west as extensive as he had planned would have meant that Alexander would have been away from the center of his empire for years, leaving the local administrators free to seize more power for themselves. Consequently, this could have created a destabilizing affect similar to his Indian campaign. If his goal had been to create a lasting and fully functioning empire, he would have tried to strengthen his rule in the territories already in his possession before attempting to increase his holdings. Another indication of the fact that Alexander desired conquest rather than to change the world was the patchwork of governing styles that his empire displayed. Different territories in the empire received widely different systems of government. While mainland Greece chafed under what they felt was too controlling a leader, the Greeks of Asia were treated with a much lighter hand. For example, Alexander made it clear to the people of Chios that “the government of Chios shall be democratic” after he conquered the area (266). Egypt and Persia were governed in still another way; in this case, he maintained much of the Persian system of satrapies and even left some of the Persian satraps in power. In some of these cases it is apparent that Alexander was attempting to appeal to the local populace by leaving their way of life mostly intact but this would not have furthered the interest of his empire in any other way. Yet, respect for the culture and religion of the people he conquered, both of which he had already shown, would have sufficiently conveyed his ability to appease the public without weakening the empire by dividing it into multiple governments. It would make sense to create a cohesive system of government if he truly wanted to create an empire that would stand the test of time. In contrast, the fragmented governments that Alexander left in his wake speak to his desire to placate the local populations in his initial bids for these territories. Another key weakness in the multiple governments was Alexander’s allowance of the Persian governing system’s continuation was that it left his empire vulnerable. A large part of Persia’s downfall was linked with a governing style that allowed local administrators to view themselves as rulers of their own miniature kingdoms and that fostered little loyalty in conquered peoples (Hirsch. 12/2/14). A leader with any foresight would have attempted to rectify this problem rather than allowing it to remain unchecked. Alexander’s negligence in this regard clearly shows that his goals revolved around short term conquest rather than what was best for his empire in the long term. While Alexander did change the customs of both Greece and Asia, they were not far reaching transformations that would have radically altered the world he lived in, and in some cases they even weakened his authority.
Admittedly, he did help to spread Greek culture throughout his empire by founding seventy cities in the Greek fashion (Hirsch. 12/2/14), however, this was not enough to truly change the world in a significant way. Although he Hellenized the culture of these areas, Alexander was not able to create an overarching identity that would have brought the empire together and made it a cohesive whole because people were still fundamentally Egyptian or Persian or whatever ethnicity that had been before Alexander had conquered their lands. Had he been able to accomplish this, he would have truly changed the world and have created a much stronger empire as well. Additionally, his incorporation of Persian customs into his court was one way in which his changes damaged his ability to rule. When he attempted to introduce proskynesis, his only real accomplishment was the alienation of the Greek and Macedonians in his court. While proskynesis was accepted as an honor bestowed on kings in the east, Greeks and Macedonians viewed this gesture as being reserved for the gods, so they were quite displeased to be forced to perform this for Alexander. Had he taken a less obstinate stance and been “…honored by the Greeks and Macedonians as a human being…and by foreigners alone after the foreign fashion” as Callisthenes had suggested, Alexander could have spared himself the trouble of alienating men from his homeland. What truly makes this kind of action a danger to his authority was the fact that most of his army was Greek or Macedonian. If he ever overstepped himself by becoming too “Orientalized” he could very easily have lost the support of his main fighting force, which would have been a massive loss for the new
empire. Alexander’s actions plainly show where he laid his priorities: with conquest. His actions both in incorporating customs from other culture into new portions of his empire and the way he allowed his territories to be governed, both of which had detrimental effects on his domain, showed that he was not thinking with the long term goal of bettering his empire. In addition the sheer scope of his campaigns belie his need to conquer new lands. Alexander the Great was first and foremost a conqueror.
Alexander adopted Persian governing practices, but he had little use for Persian culture. According to his Greek biographer Plutarch, he considered himself "a governor from God and a reconciler of the world." He hoped that Greek culture would, through his actions, permeate all of Asia, inspiring its peoples to pursue virtue, excellence, and truth. This heroic idealism blended with practicality in his plan to develop the Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus rivers as commercial waterways linking all of Asia These undertakings promised to be long and difficult, however, and Alexander was an impatient man. His soldiers' unwillingness to proceed past the Indus was a great disappointment to him, for which he compensated by throwing his own festivals and celebrations. Alexander showed early leadership qualities. When King Phillip invaded Thrace, he left Alexander in charge of Macedonia at the age of 16. During his father's absence, one of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi, rebelled. Alexander was able to mobilize an army and put down the rebellion. In 336 B.C, Alexander's father was assassinated, putting Alexander on the throne at the age of 20. Shortly after this, Alexander left Macedonia with his armies to put down rebellions in the countries of Illyria, Thrace and Greece, all of which had previously been conquered by King Phillip. Alexander then moved his armies into Asia Minor and began to conquer the peoples there. Among the countries conquered by Alexander were Syria, Phoenicia and
Diodorus, and Plutarch make Alexander seem very arrogant in their writing because of his impossible goals and plans. Alexander was originally Macedonian, but over the years, he adopted many different cultures. During Alexander’s rule, he conquered many nations and won many battles. He was very confident in himself. Additionally, it is clear that historians wished to highlight his goal to unite the world and create one culture. In Plutarch’s The Mixing of Barbarians and Greeks, Plutarch explains Alexander’s goal to unify
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 was the son of Philip Macedonia. Alexander the Great was a big admirer of Greek culture during his time. During Alexander the Great time in history he spread the Greek culture through the Middle East and North Africa. Alexander the Great past away at an early age and after his death the Greeks took over the Romans.
The. Alexander the Great. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.
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
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.
...ath the spread of Greek culture, language and art continued to modern day China, where Alexander never step foot on. This is a testament to how involved Greek culture was in Alexander’s vast empire . The universal language in Alexander’s empire was Greek, which lead to easy trading and easily fixed problems. Alexander dreamed to have a massive empire and to bring man together. Both of these were achieved in a decade. Even after his death the Greek language carried on and so did many other customs.
Alexander the Great was only 20 years when his father Philip of Macedon died. Even though he was a young man, he had an unusual talent for politics and military tactics. After his father’s death, Alexander moved to continue Philip’s invasion of Persia. In the ten years of his war campaigns, Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world. (Judge & Langdon, 2012.)
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.
...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.
Alexander the Great (July 356BC – June 323BC) was King of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon. By the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world. He remained undefeated in battle and is considered one of history’s most successful Military commanders. Historians’ have offered theories which could explain Alexander’s motivation to conquer so much of the known world. Some suggest that Alexander was an idealistic visionary who sought to unite the world, whereas others argued that he was a fascist whose hunger for power drove him. The Ancient Greeks were driven by love of honour (philotimaea) and their desire for greatness. They were competitive, always striving to better one another.
...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.”
He was also influential and clever. In each conquest, Alexander retained local officials who were loyal to him and he appointed Macedonian governors to the province capitals. He founded administrative capitals to control the regions. He founded Alexandria, Egypt which became the cultural capital of Mediterranean in the ancient world. Nevertheless, he also began to wear Persian clothing and he encouraged his soldiers to do the same in order to keep the peace. Therefore, he executed the men who resisted obeying his order. He married with a Persian and he encouraged his soldiers to marry with Persians to mix the culture. Persians loved Alexander and they respected him like he was a Persian like them. Even the Persian army joined with Alexander by will. That is why he controlled his massive empire without riots and this proves that he was very influential and clever.