Which emperor was “greater”: Darius of Persia -OR- Alexander of Macedonia? Alexander of Macedonia was a “greater” emperor than Darius of Persia. This is because of three different reasons. My first reason is that he was only twenty-years-old when he took power. To have the maturity level and intelligence to be able to command an army and take over most Persia and Greece, and part of India is extraordinary. My second reason is that he was ambitious and was a brilliant military strategist. Alexander began to expand his empire once he took power by crushing a Greek revolt in Thebes, and ordered the execution of 6,000 people while enslaving the rest. While some may think that this act would make him a “bad” emperor, in fact,
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.
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 Emperor had been vague about who should be his successor, the only two obvious biological candidates were either too young or mentally incapable. This resulted in a long period of regency with a weak dual monarchy. This gave the diadochi time to try to consolidate power for themselves. Alexander 's military brilliance and charisma were difficult for the successors to emulate and they lacked his grand ambitions. However they still tried their best to mimic him in order claim as large a chunk of power and territory as possible. Under the guise of preserving the unity of the empire and Argead rule, the successors formed coalitions to oppose anyone who looked like they were about to take full control of state, however they really wanted power for themselves. For many years the Diadochi perpetuated the illusion of wanting to restore the empire under the Argead dynasty out of loyalty. Many macedonians maintained great respect for Alexander 's family and it was essential to appease these admirers. Only after the diadochi had sufficiently consolidated their power did they assume the title king in 306 and 305. Military success itself was essential for maintaining authority but also for acquiring the treasure needed to buy the soldier 's favour and make grandiose gestures of wealth such as feasts to demonstrate their power. The successors paid great attention to
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 and Augustus, two names that countless people have spoken. Many people have no doubt heard these names; others perhaps have not. Alexander the Great and Augustus were two men who were famous for their accomplishments in ancient times. So, they are similar right? Wrong.
...than Julius Caesar. The two leaders were very good and powerful leaders of their time and place; it is just Alexander the Great’s rule that stands out the most as being more successful.
Alexander was Great because of his leadership. When Alexander went into battle, he used lots of complicated strategies to win. Due to the teachings of Aristotle, he was a force to reckoned with. One example comes from Doc B.The battle was set in India, against a king named Porus. He had more than 30 elephants under his control. The one thing that separated them was a shallow river. The document tells us that he would “Take his cavalry to various positions along the river bank where he would create a clamor… This went on for quite a time until Porus no longer reacted” Alexander used great strategy to outsmart his enemy.
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.
he achieved another one of his goals, but this one was right at the top of all his other accomplishments, Alexander the Great led his army and were able to defeat the Persian army and conquer the Persian Empire. Alexander dad’s name was Philip who was married to Cleopatra. The war began about 334 B.C. and Darius, Macedonian leader, was twenty-two years old, but was very intelligent because he has been ready for this war and was prepared. Darius prepared himself and his army by selecting the spot of the battle so that they would know where everything was at, know exactly when and where to go, and just made everything else perfect for his army that would give them edge to winning the war. The Persian seemingly already had the edge to winning before it all even got started. “The Persian army possibly had about 200,000 soldiers to Alexander’s 35,000 soldiers.”(Eye Witness) Darius had created the area of the battle’s ground to be flat, but Darius ordered his army to shift right hoping that Alexander’s army wouldn’t have any kind of advantage but attacking from the flat land and hopefully shift them to the rugged part of the land. But, Darius’s army ended up in the rugged, rocky terrain because they shifted right too much and they were forced to flee and Alexander the Great came out on top with the
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
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.)
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.
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).
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