Does Alexander III of Macedonia really deserved to be called "Great"?
This question is truly debatable, but it all comes down to pure opinion, which is usually based on hard facts. What exactly did Alexander do that could lead people to infer that he was indeed great, and what did he do that could lead people to believe that he wasn't? Above all, excluding all details, was Alexander's disposition great? Is
it possible that the things that Alexander did that were not considered great
outweigh the things that he did that were considered great? In my opinion,
Alexander shouldn’t be considered great. I truly believe that Alexander III of Macedonia doesn't deserved to be called great. Granted, he did accomplish great things in his lifetime, but they're tainted by some questionable things that he did. After his
father Phillip II died, Alexander took the throne unopposed but still murdered his half-brother, who was just a baby, just to eliminate any future threat. On more than one occasion did Alexander kill his own men (Fox 112). During one occasion, Alexander threw a spear, impaling his best friend.
Alexander impales his best friend Cleitus with a spear, killing him. |
What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?
There is a lot to be learned from the ancient Macedonians, and one can infer a lot about the values of their society based on their view of greatness. Alexander's people saw him as great because he was unprecedented in nearly every aspect, namely in battle. The Macedonians were proud and saw it as a display of power when Alexander conquered Persia, among many other regions. Sometimes our values seem trivial and superficial
Alexander III of Macedon charging into yet another
undefeated battle with his men behind him.
|
when compared to the problems that the rest of the world is facing, and the same can be said for the ancient Macedonians. From what we know, Alexander was looked up to and thought highly of by his people because of his immense victory in battle and his ability to take over what seemed to be anything that he set his mind to. This tells us that the ancient Macedonians valued pride and victory. Again, the same can be said of us in the sense that many people today
Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?
Time and distance absolutely have an impact on one’s popular perception. We view people from history much differently than they were viewed in their own time and by people who were closer to them.
Thebes, located near the river Nile. |
In 335 B.C (Adkins
42-44), rumors spread throughout Greece that Alexander III of Macedon had died.
Thebes, a small city-state, began to revolt at the news of his death.
Immediately, Alexander headed to Thebes. Even though he gave the Thebans a
chance to repent of their wrongdoings, he ruthlessly destroyed them when they didn't.
Alexander and his men ruthlessly destroying Thebes in 335 B.C.
|
He and his men killed six thousand, sparing no women or children,
and sold the remaining thirty thousand as slaves. The Macedonians might have
seen this act as a display of power, but any Theban sold into slavery by
Alexander would’ve thought that Alexander was cruel, unmerciful, and excessive.
Even today, people who live in proximity to Greece might interpret what
Alexander did to the Thebans differently than people in the United States of
America do. In
addition to distance, time plays a key role in determining a person’s popular
perception. Unfortunately, many of our opinions today on specific subjects are
tainted and biased because we allow outside knowledge to influence us. In
Alexander’s time, news was spread more purely, straight from person to person.
Some of the things that we now know about Alexander might not have been widely
known by people back then, which means that their opinions on a certain subject
would be completely objective, with no outside influence. That doesn’t
necessarily make them fairer than we are, just because they knew less, but it
definitely has an impact on the way that one was viewed in their own time and is viewed today.
Works Cited
Adkins, Lesley. Handbook to
Life in Ancient Greece. N.p.: Fact on File, 2005. Print.
Fox, Robin Lane. Alexander
the Great. N.p.: Penguin Group, 2004. Print.
Grant, Michael. A Guide to
the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Place Names. N.p.: Sterling,
1997. Print.
Green, Peter. Alexander of
Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. N.p.: U of California, 2013.
Print.
History of Macedonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
<http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html>.
Kreiger, Larry S., Roger B. Beck, and Linda Black. World History: Patterns of Interaction.
N.p.: n.p., 2007. Print.
Levi, Peter S. Atlas of the
Greek World. N.p.: Fact on File, 1981. Print.
Robinson, Charles Alexander, Jr. Ancient History. N.p.: Literary Licensing, 2011. Print.
Salowey, Christine A., ed. Great
Lives from History: The Ancient World: Prehistory-476 C.E. N.p.: Salem,
n.d. Print.
Walbank, Frank W. "Alexander the Great." Britannica. N. pag. Alabama Virtual Library. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
<http://school.eb.com/levels/high/article/106078>.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that you do not consider Alexander great. You made some really good points to support your answer. Also, very nice job on including the Thebes revolt in your third question. I found all three of your answers very well supported and very interesting. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteIf you say that the Macedonian people thought of Alexander as "great", then explain why some people today would not think of him as great?
ReplyDeletePeople today might say that Alexander isn't great because we are influenced by our own knowledge of his entire life, whereas people who lived during his time only knew what was portrayed by Alexander himself.
DeleteI like how you said that even though Alexander was a good general, but since he was unethical in his treatment of others, he is not great
ReplyDeleteI also thought Alexander was not great, but it was cool to hear your thoughts, on how Alexander's orientalism caused him to be viewed as a god.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading you post and seeing your view on him. I liked how you said that the first question and it's up to your opinion.
ReplyDeleteYour argument in question one is very strong. I like how you stated is achievements, but you completely disregarded them because of his lack of morals. Great job!
ReplyDeleteThe way that you explained Alexander's behavior within other countries made Alexander seem to have a murderous tendency, but what about the spread of Hellenistic culture that he also brought with him?
ReplyDeleteThe only reason that Hellinistic culture spread was because Alexander invaded so many places and took over. Most times, murders were involved in his overtaking of other places.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading thins and I agree with the points you made. I thought it was cool how you said that the answer to the first question was all based on opinion.
ReplyDelete