Alexander conquered a great deal of lands, but he acted and treated his men horribly. In that case, I would have to say no, he does not deserve to be called "great". He inherited the throne at the age of twenty and immediately followed his fathers footsteps in wanting to conquer the Persian Empire, so he left for Asia with 30,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. He was a very stubborn man in the case that when he met with Darius II to discuss an agreement, Darius II offered Alexander all of his lands west of the Euphrates River. Alexander's army urged him to agree, and go home to rule his kingdom but he refused, and declared his plan to conquer the whole Persian Empire.
Alexander was called great, because he conquered over 100 lands, but was he great in the manner of teamwork, leadership, and courage?
Alexander was called great, because he conquered over 100 lands, but was he great in the manner of teamwork, leadership, and courage?
Map of Alexander's journey and what lands he conquered.
After Darius II was killed by one of his governors, Alexander then hunted him down and killed him with his reasoning being "stealing his thunder". Alexander was also a very immature man with a twisted mind, he would sometimes get drunk and slaughter his own men or tell one of his own men to kill another. When Alexander had a problem, he used his money to buy to buy his way out of it. He left for Asia for 11 years, from 334 B.C. to 323 B.C., some sources say that his mother was left in charge, while others say he left the Antipater in charge. Overall, he left his people for 11 years. He was also very selfish, naming 70 cities after himself, and one after his horse. Alexander tamed his horse when nobody else could. At one point in his life, Alexander was courageous and listened to what other people told him. If he would have stayed like this, then yes, he could have still deserved to be called great. In my opinion, he doesn't deserve to be called great. He doesn't even deserve to be called a king.
2. What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?
In my opinion, society's values of what greatness is shouldn't be the right type of greatness. Society reads the tabloids, watches the news, and listens to the sound of what we've been brainwashed into thinking about what greatness is or even better, who greatness can be found upon. Many people in society actually are great people, whereas the public and the tabloids depict them as horrible people. Alexander is the type of person that people look up to while others shun. When he died, mostly all of his people greatly missed him and wished they had more time with him as a general and a king. In general, If society can depict who is and is not great, then something is wrong with how we're living today.
3. Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?
In Alexander's time as king, he had very few followers, or believers. It was after he died that his people took after the Romans and genuinely wanted to call him great and treat him like a king. While in Rome, the ending "the great" was added to Alexander's name, as well as being a "God" by Buddhists. He was so famous and missed after he died, that several different artists had made a bust of his head such as this one:
As for distance, I don't believe that Alexander was popular in the best way for being gone so long. He left his people for 11 years and not many of his people knew exactly where he was all the time. Yes, he was popular for being farther away, but not in the best way. In different situations, one can be missed for being far away. Say if there was a child who went away to college and his parents missed him for being far away but he grew popularity for being far away and successful.
To answer all of the questions one last time:
Alexander did not deserve to be called great, I believe that the Romans thought that if they "worshipped" him and treated him like their king too, then he would not invade and conquer their lands as well. That's just what I believe. We've based our beliefs on what society has taught us and our own opinions, but we still believe Alexander is great? Something is wrong here. Lastly, Alexander was adored more and gained more followers, and his army actually missed him after he died. When he left for Asia, though, he lost followers and believers after he left for 11 years and left other people in charge of his own country.
I will now refer to Alexander as "Alexander the no good, killing his own men, horrible, bad general".
Works CIted:
In my opinion, society's values of what greatness is shouldn't be the right type of greatness. Society reads the tabloids, watches the news, and listens to the sound of what we've been brainwashed into thinking about what greatness is or even better, who greatness can be found upon. Many people in society actually are great people, whereas the public and the tabloids depict them as horrible people. Alexander is the type of person that people look up to while others shun. When he died, mostly all of his people greatly missed him and wished they had more time with him as a general and a king. In general, If society can depict who is and is not great, then something is wrong with how we're living today.
3. Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?
In Alexander's time as king, he had very few followers, or believers. It was after he died that his people took after the Romans and genuinely wanted to call him great and treat him like a king. While in Rome, the ending "the great" was added to Alexander's name, as well as being a "God" by Buddhists. He was so famous and missed after he died, that several different artists had made a bust of his head such as this one:
As for distance, I don't believe that Alexander was popular in the best way for being gone so long. He left his people for 11 years and not many of his people knew exactly where he was all the time. Yes, he was popular for being farther away, but not in the best way. In different situations, one can be missed for being far away. Say if there was a child who went away to college and his parents missed him for being far away but he grew popularity for being far away and successful.
To answer all of the questions one last time:
Alexander did not deserve to be called great, I believe that the Romans thought that if they "worshipped" him and treated him like their king too, then he would not invade and conquer their lands as well. That's just what I believe. We've based our beliefs on what society has taught us and our own opinions, but we still believe Alexander is great? Something is wrong here. Lastly, Alexander was adored more and gained more followers, and his army actually missed him after he died. When he left for Asia, though, he lost followers and believers after he left for 11 years and left other people in charge of his own country.
I will now refer to Alexander as "Alexander the no good, killing his own men, horrible, bad general".
Works CIted:
Robinson, Charles Alexander, and Lorna Greenberg. Ancient Greece. New York: F. Watts, 1984. Print.
Falls, C. B. The First 3000 Years: Ancient Civilizations of the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile River Valleys, and the Mediterranean Sea. New York: Viking, 1960. Print.
"Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html>.
"8 Surprising Facts about Alexander the Great." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 13 May 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/eight-surprising-facts-about-alexander-the-great>.
Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.biography.com/people/alexander-the-great-9180468#synopsis>.
"Welcome to the British Museum." British Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.britishmuseum.org/>.
You made a lot of interesting points - the one about how tabloids have such a huge impact on society despite their lack of credibility was particularly nice.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed that you examined a financial standpoint as well as his tendency toward the rest of his military to show that he relied too heavily on factors that had chances of faltering.
ReplyDeleteIn the first question, most of the facts supported Alexander being called great but your response said he wasn't great, but overall your responses had interesting facts that i hadn't thought about
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked about how Darius had tried to come to an agreement with Alexander. You have great points that i didn't even think about. Great Job!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really love this writing style, I agree with ypur points to. I can tell you did more thatn a good amount of research
ReplyDeleteThrough my studies of ancient art from the sub-continent of India, I also, agree that Alexander was not great. He was a needlessly mean warrior who destroyed valuable communities and consequently artifacts for the "spoils" of war. Unfortunately, he is called "Great" and for that reason to this day the victor destroys the women, children and artwork of the city they conquer, when imprisoning the warriors would have sufficed.
ReplyDelete