More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the conquest of alexander the great
Essay on alexander's leadership
Alexander the great conquest essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Alexander the not so hero
Alexander the great is a villain because he is selfish and to controlling.
Alexander the great is a Villain because he Killed innocent people.He is a villain. After war he still slaughtered many innocent people. According to But whatever the odds, in three years time he blazed a trail from what is now Turkey to “Egypt, dismantling the Persian Empire.”. This evidence supports my claim because it proves my point that Alexander the great killed many innocent people. He killed innocent people in the journey he went on from turkey to Egypt. Also, he did not stop once he conquered one place. According to Alexander the Not-So-Great, “Once he made up his mind to conquer a territory, Alexander the Great was unstoppable.” This proves he is a villain because he conquered places that had innocent people and when he conquered them he probably had a war there. When there is war, there is no
…show more content…
happy ending and innocent people die. Alexander the Great is a terrible ruler because when he was ruling, Greece was in a bad place.
Alexander the Great was a terrible ruler for many reasons. When he was ruling, he went and conquered non-stop. As a result, people didn’t have a leader because he wouldn’t stick around to help lead people -- he moved on to the next civilization. According to Alexander the Great, “He moved quickly to gain control of the rest of Greece, although he was not yet 20 years old.” This proves he is a villain because he didn’t help any of his people because they had nobody to lead them. Also, according to Abc’s Study Suggests Alexander Not So Great “There is no doubt that Greek culture became deeply entrenched in the major cities under his rule, many of which he named Alexandria, but the story in the hinterlands, where "most people lived" is still unclear, Stewart says”(24). This proves he was not a leader because the place where most people lived didn’t have anything left. He could have killed the culture that was there because nothing says
otherwise. Some people might think Alexander the Great is a hero because he spread greek culture. While many would think that this is important to help us know what democracy is, they are wrong. According to The John Maxwell Company”Once he made up his mind to conquer a territory, Alexander the Great was unstoppable.”. If he were to have helped wouldn’t have ruined culture, civilizations, traditions , Families, Innocent people so therefore he helped nothing at all. That is a not on the hero more like coughing up some villain there destroying cities with innocent people it is like just look at the guy and your whole city culture and family it just poof It’s gone.
In conclusion, Alexander the Great wasn’t great because he didn’t care for other people, didn’t show leadership or any smarts. Many may say that he was an amazing person who did incredible things with the support of the people. However, if you look closely at his actions you could clearly see his reasoning of greed and power. He killed many innocent people to make his dream of controlling the world come true. Before giving someone a title or name it’s important that we make sure it makes sense and fits their
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: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.
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
...o hundred thousand murders during Alexander’s reign of terror into account. Alexander the Great was not so great!
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.
...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.
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.
Alexander the Great is a villain because he killed many people. He was labelled as a villain because he killed tons of innocent people that didn’t deserve it. According to A hero’s hero- alexander and achilles, “Here was a man, who walked in flesh and blood, a man who went on to conquer the whole world before he was thirty-two”(1). This proves he is a villain because it states that he would walk in flesh and blood just to get what he wants if it was for the better or for the worse and also a true leader would not kill innocent people just to get what he wanted even if it did not have a good impact. According to the John Maxwell Company, “Alexander
First, Alexander the Great was very serious and committed to reach lands and conquer them for his people. At that time, others believe that there was no race of mankind, city, or individual the name Alexander had not reached. Everyone
(Alexander the Great - Hero or Villain?) Some of these deaths he caused when he and his army “went on some ‘killing sprees’ to smaller towns and killed or enslaved everyone in the town”. (Alexander the Great - Hero or Villain?) Alexander really was a villain because he deliberately caused the death of 250,000 people. Some of these victims were innocent, and Alexander only killed them to gain more power and wealth. He might have even killed these people just because he was bored. Killing nearly 250,000 people just to gain more power is almost a definition of being a
Alexander the great was a villain because he was egotistical. Historians have long argued that there have been many examples of Alexander doing things that favor himself and himself only. After Alexander’s father died he wanted to be king. “According to Alexander the Great” by Bio “The army proclaimed Alexander the feudal king and
The war of Agis III in 331 BCE demonstrated that a war that should have been easily won was not; however, it was won in the end. Alexander also bought the loyalty of his troops with high pay, bonuses, remission of taxes, cancellation of debts, and signs of royal favor. Even with these benefits, his troops weren’t always loyal to him and sometimes mutinied. They mutinied once in 326 BCE and refused to keep marching, forcing Alexander to turn around and head back. He also risked the lives of his men. While heading back, Alexander took a different route through the Gedrosian desert, resulting in starvation, heat, dehydration, and the slaughter of baggage animals. By taking this route, he unnecessarily cost many of his troop’s lives. He also endangered lives during the unnecessary siege of Tyre in 332 BCE. In addition to his own troops that died, he killed all the men of Tyre. Another reason Alexander didn’t deserve the title of ‘Great’ was that he murdered his friends and people that disagreed with him. For example, he had Philotas and his father killed because they didn’t support his policies and strategies. While Alexander was a brilliant militarist, he didn’t rule his conquered territories. He was more concerned with conquering than with ruling what he had already conquered. He ruled