ALEXANDER IS GREAT

Jackson Vest

9/30/14

Does Alexander deserve to be called “Great”?

Alexander deserves to be great, because of his great contributions to Macedonia. He was elevated unexpectedly into the thrown at a young age of 20 years old(Fox pg.22). Many people doubted him, but he was ready for the task at hand.

Alexander began his journey by following his fathers next step in leading Macedonia to greatness. He conquered the mighty Persian empire(Salowey pg.224). It took many devastating battles but Alexander prevailed as the victor. A victory the Greeks never could accomplish. Alexander began to like the culture and arts of the Persians. He began to dress like one, and he even married and Persian woman(Salowey pg.225). Many of his men disagreed with his decision, and because of this he publically executed them(Salowey pg.225). This struck fear into all the citizens of Macedonia. This was one of the reasons he kept such a strong empire across such a vast amount of land. Alexander also became the Pharaoh of Egypt as soon as he arrived, he was met by the Egyptian people with no armed forces. They openly accepted him as their new ruler. Alexander continued by conquering most of Southwest Asia. He would’ve conquered more land if he wouldn’t have had to turn around because of his soldiers fatigue. Along his journey Alexander did one thing most rulers wouldn’t have done. He blended many cultures into one, this is called the Hellenistic Civilization. This was a combination of Greek, Persian, and Egyptian cultures that Alexander believed to be the perfect culture for his perfect empire. Alexander was very confident in his empire and his power. He was confident in himself and his citizens. Because of these accomplishments he will always be known as one of the greats.

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

The Macedonians considered Alexander great, because of the courage he showed and his commitment to always strive for more. This shows the Macedonians believed there was no limit when money, fortune, or power was at stake. The Macedonians thrived on the chaos that Alexander provided. They all believed they could never face defeat because he was the greatest general and they were the greatest empire. Some people did not approve of him, but when they publicly spoke out Alexander would kill that person himself, just like he did to his brother and his best friend(Grant pg.167). He was a ruthless killer, and the people enjoyed having a leader that showed no fear in politics and in battle. This shows that the people at the time valued and accepted his violent nature.

People liked Alexander because he never stopped expanding. He had conquered most of Minor Asia and Egypt. This shows the Macedonians had become greedy. While Alexander and the soldiers were marching day after day. Many people in the home state of Macedonia were having the time of their lives. They were more powerful than they had ever been. The architecture wasn’t grand at the time, even though wealth was still present in the great city. They encouraged the efforts to keep expanding, but at the same time they were ungrateful and wanted all of the cites, new and old, to be luxurious with grand architecture. The people were full of greed and violence, but they could not help themselves for that is what they had been exposed to. They feared Alexander’s ruthless acts but as long has he continued to provide them with the spoils of victory they were willing to compromise their moral values.

Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?

Distance and time do have an impact how we see people. Over time people tend to slowly disappear from our memories. Alexander remains in our memories due to the great and massive accomplishments during his life. A very long time ago when Alexander roamed this earth, many people knew his stories. We know his stories today in modern times but we do not have the same connections as those who had the honor to stand before him. He has lasted the test of time due to the legend he built.

Distance can change the way a populus perceives an individual or an army. Distance allows for rumors to spread allowing the legend to begin. It can fuel hatred, fear, and love. The Egyptians were afraid as they had never seen Alexander’s army. They surrendered without a fight, and never thought twice about that decision. The Thebes(Salowey pg.227) formed an opposite position as they revolted and fought out of pure hate for Macedonia and Alexander. They used to look down upon Macedonia like a little brother, and now they were second class citizens. They knew that Macedonia used to be a rat hole of a city state. This sparked a fire inside their minds that they can defeat them. Distance can affect point of views even if it is a few hundred miles.

Works Cited

Fox, Robin Lane. Alexander the Great. New York: Dial, 1974. Print.

Grant, Michael. A Guide to the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Place Names. Bronx, NY: H.W. Wilson, 1986. Print.

Salowey, Christina A. Great Lives from History: The Ancient World: Prehistory - 476 C.E. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem, 2004. Print.

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-Clio, 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander the Great." Britannica School.Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2014. Web. 26 Sep. 2014.

Was Alexander the Great really Great?

                     Alexander the"Great"?

        Imagine yourself having a king that is supposed to be ruling over you and caring for the empire, but your king is never there. How would you begin to feel towards your king who isn't ruling over the nation and the people? This in a way is what it was like for the people who were under Alexander III's rule.

       Throughout history Alexander has always been referred to as Alexander the Great.  But what did he do that made him great? Granted he was a genius, a great strategist, and an amazing general, but these are not the only traits that a king should posses.  Alexander was born in the summer of 356 BC and succeeded the throne at age 20 when his father was assassinated. But many don't know what his childhood was like. Alexander had inherited his military talent and quality of capacity for affairs from his father Phillip II. At age 13 Alexander started tutoring under Aristotle who taught that "moderation cannot hold a kingdom together". At age 16 he governed Macedonia in his father's absence. At age 19 his father married Cleopatra and he ran away with his mother to Illyria. His father then banished Alexander and his mother, but was soon persuaded by Demaratus (a peace maker)  to allow Alexander to return. The next year his father was assassinated (Tarn, 1-121).  Alexander then succeeded the throne and inherited a well-trained army. Could Alexanders greatness come from his father's legacy or from something else? 

      Alexander continued to build an army that was drilled, trained, disciplined much like the armies today. Alexander had a large army consisting of: 12,000 Macedonian phalanx; 7,000 in the league troop; 7,000 Odrysian, Triballian, and other tribal levies; 1,000 light-armed troops (archer and Agrarians) ; 5,000 mercenaries; 11,000 advance expeditions; and 1,800 Macedonian Phalanx (Green, 158). Alexander was an amazing general. He had lead his calvary past the Persian line and achieved a stunning victory over the Persians. This triumph created Alexanders reputation of being a bold commander whose soldiers were devoted to him. After Alexanders success against the Persian Empire Darius (Alexanders rival) was killed. Alexander had earned his reputation of greatness from a military perspective. He made sure his troops were well fed and he led them into battle. He was easily recognized in the front lines and was an inspiration to his troops because of his courage. Alexander conquered 3,000 miles of territory making it the largest empire in the ancient world. Alexander the Great never lost a battle. 

      Although Alexander was a brilliant general he pushed his troops too hard and made examples of those he thought were not loyal by brutally killing them. His troops thought that the battles would cease after conquering Persia, but Alexander wanted to extend the limits of his empire. Alexander adapted to Persian dress and began to be part of different religions, which began to upset the Macedonians and his men.  In 324 BC he then arranged a mass marriage at Susa, where he made 80 of his officers take persian wives while he married the daughter of Darius (Wepman, 101-104). Alexander was selfish and narcissistic naming 70 cities after himself and one after his horse. 

     In June 232 BC Alexander died of a fever.  Many began to derive different stories of his death because a "great" commander could never have died from a fever. Could the spread of these false stories have made Alexander become the "Great"?

<-- many referred to Alexander as a god, such as Hercules.

         One can learn about greatness based on the values of society by looking at who the majority of people define as leaders, mentors, and people that are famous. Today, greatness is so commonly used that its original meaning is lost. Characteristics that make greatness are courage, morality, dignity, fairness, respectfulness, and strong leadership yet these no longer matter to the world.  "That person is great" we hear, yet what qualities do they show that are great? Usually that person is attractive, funny, talented, or entertaining. Is this what we should really consider great? Those who are great are those who leave something for the world to remember them by and the actual great things they have done based on their actions and what they do for others!

         As Alexander's story showed that time and distance can impact someone's growth of popularity. After Alexander had died many false stories had been made regarding him. Such as, he was the son of Zeus or that he died from a poison. Also he was known for "never loosing a battle".  Although it sounds impressive he only ruled about 12 years. Greatness is sometime achieved, earned, or given, but must be worked for. Alexander though he did have his military greatness, he doesn't deserve to be called great. He was selfish, narcissistic  and made decisions based on would benefit himself or his legacy. He gave little thought to others. The quote below defines who should be considered great!

           Citations:

"Alexander the Great." Abc-clio. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/575648?terms=alexander+the+great>.

"Alexander the Great." SalemPress. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://history.salempress.com/doi/full/10.3331/GLAW_3611012011?prevSearch=alexander%2Bthe%2Bgreat&s

Green, Peter. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. Berkeley: U of California, 1991. Print.(pg 150-158)

Tarn, W. W. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print. (pg1-121)

Wepman, Dennis. Alexander the Great. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. Print. (pg101-105)

Alexander the "Great"

Questions #1 Does Alexander deserve to be called "Great"?

     The answer to this question all depends on what you consider to be great. Greatness by definition is the quality of bing great, distinguished, or eminent. Alexander was both distinguished and eminent, he was commanding, successful, and authoritative. As well as being famous and greatly respected in his profession. 

     Alexander III of Macedon was capable of feats nobody else of his time could possibly complete. At an early age he thought of himself as nothing less than a king and he always wanted to accomplish great things. Even when he was young, he was able to ride a wild horse that no other people had been able to tame and ride. Once he gained control of the Macedonian army they became unstoppable. Despite the fact that he was very young, he showed extreme intelligence on the battlefield. He led the army to conquer Greece as well as Persia and then he continued to conquer more land towards modern-day Turkey. He was far more intelligent than any of his military adversaries. The Thessalonians attempted to ambush him and lost the battle with casualties of 3000 to 51. Alexander wanted to accomplish great things and that's exactly what he did. Even though he lived a very short life he did things that no other people were able to do. Plutarch, a Greek Author, wrote about him "as if it were not enough to be always victorious in the field, unless places and seasons and nature herself submitted to him." Alexander does deserve to be called great because we remember him to this day for the things that he was able to do and the impact that he had on our world.

Question #2 What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness.

People think of greatness very differently now then they did in the time of Alexander the Great. Today, people think that great people are people who are either amazing at things that entertain us. Such as athletes, performers, and actors. People also admire people who can achieve amazing things, like inventing a machine that makes life easier. In Alexander's time however, greatness was being able to obtain everything you possibly could. The great people of that time were kings, and the great kings were the kings who conquered the most.

One can obviously see that the values of society have changed greatly from our day to the days of Alexander. The things the current society considers to be most important are the things that determine how great people are. In the time of Alexander it was conquering more land, for Christopher Columbus it was discovering new lands, and today it would be something such as discovering a new energy source. Whatever a society values the most will determine what that society thinks of as great.

Question #3 Do time and distance effect a person's popular perception.

Time and distance absolutely have an enormous effect on popular perception. If time didn't have any effect then our societies version of popular perception would be the same as it was in the time of Alexander the great and even before his time. Also, if distance had no effect on people's popular perception then the entire would would agree on what is popular no matter what is causing trouble in their part of the world. For example, the people in the United States do not have the same views of popularity as people in China. The people in China have different views on what is popular than the people do in the united states. In things like food, music, art, military, and other ideas the United States are different from the ideas of people in other parts of the world such as China because of many things including distance.

Works Cited

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

Bialo, Ellen. "career of Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

Sienkewicz, Thomas J. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Pasadena, CA: Salem, 2002. Print.

1) Does Alexander deserve to be called "Great"?

2) What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

3) Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?

Does Alexander the Great Live Up to His Name?

A sculpture of Alexander the Great found here

Does Alexander deserve to be called great?

a map of all the conquered lands, site here

          1. What is the first thing that pops into your mind when you think "Alexander the Great"? It's not that he was a king, or that he studied from Aristotle, or that he had a severe drinking problem that would result in his early death. I think of Alexander 111 as the Macedonian whose war tactics helped him conquer the entire persian empire among other lands and regions. In this day and age, all we remember Alexander 111 for was being a military genius. This is because Alexander 111 preferred "constant warfare over consolidating conquered territories and long-term administration" (Prof. Ian Worthington, site here). It's no secret that military and war tactics were his strong points, but was Alexander 111 a versatile man? No, The only thing on Alexander the 3rd's mind was conquering land and ruling all. Alexander 111 wasn't willing to let being king stop him from his grand plans of conquering the persian empire, so he had a man named Antipater guard the land for him. Alexander 111 didn't have time for being a king, especially since he was busy marching his tired soldiers through Asia. The only thing that brought him back to Macedon was his men's complaints, and still he still sulked about it and put up a fight. So Why do we call Alexander 111"great"? Some people argue that Alexander 111 was "one of the most successful military commanders of all time, [Alexander] has been inspiring would-be conquerers for centuries (Andra Varin, site here). But others, like myself, argue the point that yes, he may have had been a legend in the military world, but since when does one skill make a person go down in history as "the great"? How can Alexander 111 be considered great when he was a horrible king, not even caring about the land he ruled? When he were responsible "for the deaths of tens of thousands of his own men and for the unnecessary wholesale slaughter of native peoples? Or who, through his own recklessness, often endangered his own life and the lives of his men? Or whose violent temper on occasion led him to murder his friends and who towards the end of his life was an alcoholic, paranoid, megalomaniac, who believed in his own divinity?" (Prof. Ian Worthington, site here) I do not believe that Alexander should be called great. I believe Alexander 111 should be called "Alexander the military genius", but we shouldn't go all the way to calling him "great".

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?  
           2. If society considers Alexander 111 "great", then they must have the wrong idea about what is "great" and what is not.  Alexander killed tens of thousands of natives and his own men, endangered the lives of his men and himself on countless occasions, and killed his friends when he was intoxicated (which was often), (info from this site). If the whole of society can overlook his killing and drinking habits just because he had brilliant military-tactics and could conquer lands at an alarming rate, society has been brainwashed to think that muscle and brawn can excuse unnecessary violence.  A present-day example of this would be Ray Rice. Ray Rice is an american football player for the Rutgers university who is on indefinite suspension when he should be serving in prison. Ray Rice has abused his now-wife multiple times, including knocking her out by punching her directly in the face. Ray Rice has been given a slap on the wrist compared to the punishment he should've gotten because he's ranked at the second-best rusher his team has ever had. In society, there is a lot of controversy on the Ray Rice incident, many people supporting Ray Rice and trying to come up with examples as to why he should still be able to play in the game, excusing the fact that he has abused a person/ people because he is good at what he does. When society calls Alexander "great" it's a kick in the face to me. He looks heroic and brave on the outside, but when you dig deeper you in fact find that Alexander was not a hero, but a villain. I believe our views on Alexander "the great" really show the true face of society: broken and bruised.

Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?
          3. Alexander has definitely been considered great since his time of birth through the course of history, but not everyone that we learn about today has always been a legend. Most people that we view as important parts of history, in fact, became well known after they died. An example of this would be Van Gogh, most famous for his painting "Starry Night". Van Gogh is "recognized as one of the most prolific Dutch Post-Impressionist painters. He grew up as a shy child with self-esteem issues. He suffered from mental illness and epilepsy. Vincent Van Gogh allegedly committed suicide on July 29, 1890, when he was just 37 years old. " (RR Donnelly, site here) During his lifetime, he created some of the best impressionistic art ever known, but none of it was dicovered until shortly after his death. His paintings became famous and now sell for millions of dollars. It's sad to think that people like Van Gogh never got to live the life of fame and wealth, but Alexander 111 did. It is an unfortunate and common occurence that a person will spend their lifetime working towards their success, only to achieve it once they've died. It all depends on luck, if you're recognized before or after death. Alexander 111 was considered great before he died, and that means people knew exactly all the "great" things he was doing. So when Alexander died, they had more information on him, and therefore could make more stories about him that would make him seem even braver and "greater". The stories and facts have been passed down to generation after generation, making their way through the centuries. Even though the stories are considered folklore now, they still stuck to the brains of the early civilizations and gave people a reason to pass the stories down. We don't know intricate details about Van Gogh's early life because he wasn't born into fame and glory, but Alexander 111 and Vincent Van Gogh still got to the same place in the end. So yes, time and distance definitely impact someone's popular perception.
(I don't know why this last part appears smaller)

Works Cited

"Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html>.

"Curiosity : Discovery Channel." Discovery Channel. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/alexander-the-great-region-conquer>.

Levi, Peter. Atlas of the Greek World. New York, NY: Facts on File, 1980. Print.

"Pothos.org." - Introduction to Alexander the Great. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=introduction-to-alexander>.

Varin, Andra. "What Made Alexander So Great?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 24 Nov. 2004. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=267330>.

Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fancienthistory.abc-clio.com%2FSearch%2FDisplay%2F575648%3Fterms%3DAlexander%2Bthe%2Bgre>.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great2.html>.

Alexander the (not so) Great

1) Does Alexander deserve to be called Great?

              Yes, Alexander did accomplish a lot in his lifetime. He studied under Aristotle, he founded the library of Alexandria which is one of the largest and most significant libraries in existence. He perfected the Phalanx, and even assumed his father's throne in record time (103, Freeman) But if anyone is going to call Alexander "Great" it should not be for this. It should be for the great amount of innocent people he killed. Or maybe his certainty that he was greater than all other humans, that he was like a god. Looking at Alexander's life portfolio, it seems that he accompolished more than any normal human could, but if you read deeper you would see that how he did it was unethical, and should in no way be praised.

              When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire (Moultan, 22)  he didn't do it by negotiation. He threatened to kill, and the majority of the time he followed up with those threats. But he didn't just kill members of the Persian military, he killed innocents in their homes who Alexander deemed "in the way", meaning they wouldn't let Alexander rob them of all their possessions, and their take there house. The more Alexander killed, and the more land he acquired, the more his ego would grow. He would abuse the power he knew he had into ordering his men around with brute force, and killing them if they defied him. Alexander turned into an arrogant megalomaniac.
               I don't think being great is defined by the amount of people you killed, or made homeless just for you own satisfaction. Being great is how you helped other people, or what you did to make something in the world a little bit better. When people refer to Alexander as "the Great", they are referring to what he accomplished, and not how he got there, which is what is really important. Alexander, in my opinion, in no way deserves the title Great.





2) What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

    
          Seattle, Washington -Bill Gates' home town- has produced many great software designers after Bill, the founder of Microsoft had been recognized for his great accomplishments.  A large amount of teens from Bill's home town have entered national Intel and robotics competitions, and believe it or not, these teens from Seattle have brought home the most wins. This is because of Mr.Gates, whose accomplishments have made many Seattle societies -along with the rest of the world- who believe him to be great, look up too him, and strive to be more like him. Values change by each society. Some societies may value education because of a well recognized figure that came from that town, or some may value sports for the same reason. 
            Although I don't believe Alexander to be great, the majority of Greece and Macedonia did. This is because the values of most Ancient Greek societies were way different than ours are today. For example, in Greece, the more land you had, the more powerful you were, and the more powerful you were, the greater you were seen to be. And although Alexander's methods were completely ludicrous and overall very brutal, he was believed to be great at that time, since he was very powerful.

3) Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?


              The debate over whether or not Alexander was truly great is a perfect example of popular perception being warped by time and distance. During Alexander's reign over Greece, he was believed to be one of the greatest rulers, but why is that being questioned now?
              First of all, I am not from the Ancient Greek era, and I do not believe that mass murder to acquire land makes you a powerful king. Today, that would be highly frowned upon in most modern countries believe it or not. Over the course of 3,300 plus years, and a distance of over 5,800 miles,  different stories about Alexander the Great have been twisted and tampered with, some leading us to believe Alexander was Great, and some leading us to believe he was the opposite. The popular perception of Alexander the Great has definitely changed.            

                                                                Bibliography:

Staff, LiveScience. "Top 10 Reasons Alexander the Great Was, Well ... Great!" LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 10 Dec. 2004. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.livescience.com/11315-top-10-reasons-alexander-great-great.html>.

"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>.


"Alexander the Great." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great>.

Gagarin, Michael, and Elaine Fantham. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Freeman, Philip. Alexander the Great. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.

"Home." Seattlepi.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.seattlepi.com/>.

Alexander the "Great" or Alexander the Great

                        Alexander was the son of Phillip of Macedonia. He took over as the king of Macedonia shortly after his father's death and at a young age. He conquered territories at extreme levels and was referred to as "Alexander the Great".

Does Alexander the Great deserve his title "Great"?

1)                    If someone were to question Alexander the Great for truly deserving the title "Great", they would immediately focus on him being egotistical, a drunk, and putting his "pothos"-desire, longing- before his people's needs. But, there is no denying that Alexander had great attributes of courage, bravery, intelligence, and battle techniques. He executed his battles to the point that he conquered one of the most powerful empires of all time, the strongest of his time.

Macedonia during Alexander's command

 He brought his own, poor, somewhat barbarian country to it's peak and to the attention of the world. It would be unfair for anyone not to give Alexander the credit of building a massive empire, carrying out intricate battle plans, and keeping a group of loyal, strong followers. He may not be the kindest, wisest, or most thoughtful leader, but greatness is not measured by every aspect of a person. Alexander was great, he was a great leader. He achieved, he advanced, and he was followed.  He was so great that, people still call him, "Alexander the Great" and even "Alexander the Great and Powerful."
                   
                      Great is a vague word, it has sixteen definitions for only the adjective, twenty-three including adverbs, nouns, interjections, and idioms. So, if one were to not agree with Alexander being "wonderful, first-rate, very good" then they might agree with "considerable in degree, intensity, or power".  Some historians claim that he isn't good or wonderful so therefore he doesn't deserve to be called Great, but isn't he intense, powerful, important, famous? Doesn't he deserve to be called those things? He isn't large either, or plentiful. He wasn't six-foot-four, he was five-foot-six. There weren't multiple Alexanders. It would be pointless to take away those titles, that he deserves, just because some the other titles that go with the word don't agree with Alexander's being.
                   
                      Alexander claimed himself to be the King of Macedonia at age twenty. He led from 336 B.C. to 323 B.C.. In these years he united Greece, recovered the Corinthian League, conquered Persia -the most powerful empire of the time. Alexander mastered the Macedonian Phalanx- a battle tactic his father, Phillip, created (see image below) - and used the tactic to conquer Persia. He brought Macedonia to it's peak of power, established Macedonian colonies and became king of Persia, Babylon, and Asia. Alexander the Great was, in fact, Great.

Macedonian Phalanx: Battle Tactic developed by Phillip, mastered by Alexander

What can one learn about the values of a society based on their views of greatness?

2)                  Every society has it's own "Greats" or people that they feel shaped their society directly and in a positive way. But how a society sees positive or useful influence is what decides who these "Greats" are. For instance, in the United State, their "Greats" would be George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and many other political and inspirational leaders. It would be interpreted from an outsider that the values of the United States, based on who are Greats are, would be freedom and bravery.

                     Alexander, being a Great of certainly the people he led and many others observing his accomplishments, show the world a little bit about what his society valued. Just because they thought of him as Great, doesn't mean they thought all of him was great. Alexander went on drunken rages several times during his rule of the Macedonian army, but that doesn't mean that Macedonia valued murder of the innocent and drunk generals. In studying what a societies Greats mean about the society, someone would also have to look at what they knew of the Greats and what they found not-so-great. His people valued his great battle and combat skills and his ability to take over the surrounding territories. This meaning that they most likely valued expansion and violence. They didn't, however value his selfishness, proving they valued unity of their country.

Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception?

3)                 After many years a person's reputation can be altered. In a long period of time more information about a person could be unearthed, the people's, who hate or love the person, views could change, and many more circumstances could take place. Great leaders who have once been loved by the public have been discovered to be drunks or other qualities could be discovered to discontent their followers. Hated leaders have been discovered to only be upsetting their people, not because of being terrible people or only looking out for themselves, but because they were forced to make poor decisions, the decision they made was better than the other options, or because the people didn't realize what was actually going to help them, and vice-versa.

Alexander and his soldiers

                   Alexander the Great had thousands of loyal followers in his time, they adored him and worshipped him, but today, his following is far more limited. Today, we know more about Alexander and his personal life, we don't have the same passion and perspective as his followers, our goals have changed, and hundreds of other leaders and generals have taken his glory.
               
                  As mentioned before, he was a drunk. This may have been known by his soldiers, but it wasn't released as common knowledge to the people of Macedonia. The people of Macedonia also didn't know his motives as in depth as people in the twenty-first century do, due to uncovered documents and artifacts. Many people in his time thought that his motive, whether they agreed with his decisions or not, was in sight of the city-state's best interest. With further evidence, it is known now that Alexander's true intentions were in the interest of himself, and his well-being. He often went on drunken rages, killing several of his men. He thought that he wasn't actually Phillip's son, but the son of Zeus.  His people knew of his egotistical ways, they were forced to bow down to him as they would to a statue of a god, but they didn't know the extent of how egotistical he was as historians have discovered after his death.

Artwork of Alexander made during his reign show him as a heroic leader

   
                Taking control over countries is as common of a goal or as admirable of a goal to have as it used to be. Then, in Alexander's time, expanding territories was a high priority to the people of Macedonia. New land and people meant more money, servants, warriors, and people to sell goods to. Getting new land now still means more money, people to sell items to, and tax, but the government doesn't look at citizens as assets as much as they used to. More countries interact peacefully together, so if one country had more wheat than another, they would be more likely to sell the wheat to the other country with less wheat. Empires in 360 B.C. , around when Alexander was alive, of Persia would have no option of how to get the resources of other empires but to conquer or have small, minor trade interactions. Countries today are united, they aren't threatened by each other, in comparison to when Macedonia was at it's peak.

               Many great leaders have came and passed during the time that Alexander the Great and his empire have fallen. Whether they were leaders politically, religiously, or artistically, they have all shifted the public's mind further away from Alexander. The more the leaders affect people directly, the more the people care about that leader and the less they care about what happened over two-thousand years ago.

Works Cited

"About This Site." Alexander the Great on the Web. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. 

"Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. 

"Alexander the Great." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. 

"Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.09.30." Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.09.30. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2014. 

"Historians on Macedonian Imperialism and Alexander the Great." Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. 

The Legacy of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. 

Webster's Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Federal Street, 2009. Print.