Does a “great” ruler slaughter thousands of innocent men, and commit heinous crimes in a drunken rage? Alexander the “great” was a greedy man that had a humongous ego and a lack of empathy that lived from 356 to 323 BCE. The only reason this man was considered “great” was because he expanded the greek empire from Macedonia, into Asia and The Middle East. Are the merits of “greatness” the value of the things that a man has achieved? He killed over 100,000 innocent men in battle and crucified and sold over 30,000 innocent people that weren’t even fighting. A ruler that killed his own brother is not worthy of the throne. Alexander The “Great” did not live up to his title; he truly should have been granted the title “horrible”.
Alexander killed
…show more content…
thousands of innocent men who weren’t even involved with his several battles. Alexander ordered that everyone in Tyre must be killed, even innocents, except those in the temple; He ended up crucifying and selling over 30,000 men (Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, University of California Press, 1991). Even though Alexander was extremely frustrated, he over-reacted in a horrible way. A ruler can not be great, and have a hot temper at the same time. The “Legend Of The Hat Band” depicts Alexander killing an innocent man that had helped him, at the instant will of a prophet (Lucius Flavius Arrianus, Campaigns of Alexander, circa 130 CE). The fact that a ruler would act against an innocent civilian at the spontaneous will of another man is incredibly unsettling. This makes one question how a man that could be so cruel could be the same boy that was tutored by Aristotle; Alexander was a cruel man, that was not even worth the throne he sat upon. The same man who has been granted the title “great” was a murderer of thousands of innocents, and definitely not fit to be any type of ruler. A greedy man for a ruler is already one thing, but a greedy narcissist like Alexander is another. Alexander named more than 5 cities after himself. (Document A). Only someone who thinks very fondly of themselves, a narcissist, would name a city after themselves; Alexander named over 5 after himself. Because of his narcissistic ego, Alexander was greedy and liked to praise himself. “[Alexander] was more interested in what lied to the south; the riches of Babylon and then Susa, of as Arrian describes them, the ‘prizes of war’. (Professor Ian Worthington, How “Great” Was Alexander?, 1999). Instead of finally vanquishing Darius, and ending the threat to his empire and its inhabitants, Alexander decided to go the opposite direction and pursue foretold riches for himself. A man that chooses gold over his people is one that is corrupt and driven primarily by greed. Alexander was a ruler driven by greed, and corrupted by power; He was almost a tyrant in the eyes of his subjects.t Some may say that Alexander was “great” because he greatly expanded the Greek empire.
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
finesse. Alexander the great was a ruler who had no political skills or knowledge on how to rule. His greedy, narcissistic ego brought upon the downfall of his own empire. Alexander was careless, and insisted on further conquesting instead of strengthening the bonds of his vast empire’s regions; he murdered his own general over this matter. He murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent men in brutal ways, including death by trampling and crucifixion. Alexander’s achievements can not make up for his heinous sins against humanity. Considering what he did to his own brethren and the people of his conquered lands, has he truly earned the title “great”? A greedy, narcissistic murderer for a ruler is definitely a tyrant, and should be treated so, for the benefit of the people around them.
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”.
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
Darius had an advantage over Alexander the Great, he had more troops, better resources, and he chose the battle field. Although Darius had the advantage he was not as smart as Alexander. Alexander had good communication with his troops; he planned according, in addition he was well organized before the battled. He did not stray away from his plan he stuck to it. Alexander troops were heavily armed they moved in formation, and they were shield with their long spears they stayed close together and moved in formation. In addition he did not have all his troops engaged in the battle at once he planned an awesome attack strategy that won him and his troops the war.
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: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.
“There is nothing impossible to him who will try” (Anonymous, Google). Alexander was not willing to give up in his lifetime. Nothing satisfied him. He always wanted to keep building his empire. Alexander the Great became a king at the young age of twenty. He was a strong leader who expanded his empire from Italy to India for eleven years with little rest. Alexander the Great was really great because Alexander made remarkable achievements while king of Greece, and he was very intelligent. Some may argue the achievements weren’t well earned, however these achievements lead to great successes.
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...
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.
Alexander the Great has been considered for centuries as a military genius and influenced conquerors such as Hannibal the Carthaginian, the Romans Pompey, Caesar and Napoleon. Although, he inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army, Alexander was capable to display his leadership and military capabilities. In 338 B.C., his father, King Phillip II, gave Alexander a commanding post among the senior generals as the Ma...
...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.
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.
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
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).
Have you ever wondered why Alexander from Macedonia is called Alexander the Great. According to history, it is because he is the most glorious general in the history who conquered Persia, Greece, Egypt and Babylon in a very inexperienced age. He became the commander of Macedonian armies at age eighteen and the king of Macedonia at age twenty. After six years of preparation, he conquered the great Persian empire. Unfortunately, he died at age thirty-three. He would have conquered many lands if he hadn’t died at a such young age. He was a legend and an icon for great kings like Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, and Pompey. World’s most famous generals tried to compete with him but they couldn’t accomplish. After years, his tomb