Was Alexander Great?

1 In my opinion Alexander of Macedonia does not deserve to be called great.  He is often perceived as great because he had a lot of military success conquering Greece, Persia,and parts of Asia and Africa, but some of his success can be credited to the other empires being weak at the time.  Also Alexander’s army was very technologically advanced, they had huge phalanxes each person armed with a 18 foot spear. This allowed him to easily weaken an army and then send his cavalry in to finish them off.  Alexander was often seen as a brave leader in battle but I believe some of his foolishness was mistaken for bravery. I say this because according to the article "How Great was Alexander" many of his decisions were made thinking of romanticized figures such as Achilles and Heracles, and in real life some battles may not turn out like the legends. According to Encyclopedia Britannica Alexander tried to enforce racial fusion in order to create a Persian-Macedonian master race. However this plan did not work and his empire split into three empires right after his death. Alexander's personal life was thought to be one of a hero but actually he was just full of himself. "The first 3000 years states that Alexander saw himself not as the son of Philip of Macedonia but actually the son of a demigod. Alexander also was very paranoid about assassinations according to Encyclopedia Britannica Alexander would execute anyone he did not see as trustworthy without a fair trial. After Alexander conquered Persia he pursued after Darius th eking of Persia and once he had learned that someone else had killed Darius he killed them for stealing his opportunity. In reality Alexander was a self absorbed, greedy leader.

jreuter.hubpages.com

2 Society views greatness as making an impact on the world.  Most of the time people are considered great for doing good deeds but sometimes the moral of the action is forgotten and only its impact is remembered.  A good example of this is Alexander the Great, he took his army through Asia and Africa defeating any army that stood in his way, but along the way he slaughtered natives and burned cities yet he is still called Alexander the Great. I believe Alexander is called great because he became famous for conquering lots of land and history books, biographies, and novels focus more on Alexander the great general and less on Alexander the self absorbed, money spending king.

3 Often popular perception is affected by time and distance.  As time goes on it seems that insignificant events are forgotten and significant events are embellished.  A lot of times people get information through stories being told, but sometimes people add things to the story that may not have actually happened in order to make the story more interesting.  One common way this is done is through movies and plays.  According to “How Great was Alexander” a great deal of exaggerating was done in Plutarch’s “On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander” and in “Alexander Romance”.  One story in “Alexander Romance” even suggested that he turned into a Mermaid.

Distance can also affect someone’s perception of a person or event.  If someone is too far away from an event to witness it for themselves the only way they could know about it is to hear it from someone else. When someone tells a story sometimes their information is incorrect and as the story gets told over and over again the information gets farther and farther from the truth. This happened in Macedonia while Alexander was away at battle.

 

                                      Work Cited

"Britannica School." Britannica School. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.       

Falls, C. B. The First 3000 Years: Ancient Civilizations of the Tigris, Euphrates, andNile River Valleys, and the Mediterranean Sea. New York: Viking, 1960. Print.

"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

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

"Alexander the Great." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Alexander the "Great"

                        Alexander the "Great" 

      From an early age Alexander watched his father, King Philip II, conqueror Persia and accomplish great things. When he was twelve he showed great equestrian skills so his father knew he would be a great solider. He was tutored by Aristotle to make him the most knowledgeable as he needs to be to rule. When his father passed away he took on a great responsibility at age twenty when his father was murdered. His fathers death caused a lot of rebellion in among the conquered countries. Does Alexander really deserve to be called great? I personally do not think he does because he passed away at thirty three years old, and never got to finish what he started. Even though he conquered a lot of territory and a very large army, he wasn't a very good king.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
    One can learn that there is more to the city than cool architecture, like their rights, how women are treated, and more. Alexander was rarely in his kingdom. He was always traveling and conquering more land. I don't think a man that can't even rule his own kingdom should be taking over other kingdoms. He was as a young girl. Men had all the rights in the polis. They could go anywhere in the city-state, they could vote, and had educationown as a great soldier more than he was a king. If he was in his kingdom he would notice that women had no rights and that slaves were higher in the classes then women. Women weren't aloud to vote or leave the house with out a man. They 
also couldn't have jobs.

     Time and distance does have an impact on someones personal perception. The distance that Alexander went to conquer all that land may have impressed people in his kingdom. It took eleven years to take all the land that he did. I can imagine why it took so long to conquer all the land because he conquered territory on a super human scale. He must have had a very precise plan because it didn't take Alexander long to have the largest territory in Ancient Europe. The picture below is Alexander's army and how they kept all the approaching soldiers back.  
    


   
      

Is Alexander really great?

1) Does Alexander deserve to be called “Great”?  

 In my opinion I think that Alexander did deserve his epithet, he deserves it for a number of reasons. Alexander only at the age of twenty took rule over entirety of Macedon and the Corinthian League after his father, king Philip, and led an army over 3,000 miles on foot. During Alexander’s rule he never lost a fight though some argue he never had a chance. He also introduced lots of strategies in war, some called Alexander a military genius because of how good he was at commanding his army. Alexander introduced a new phalanx with weapons that were far more advanced than his enemies. (Konstam, Angus. Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece. New York: Checkmark, 2003. Print.) When Alexander completed his father’s goal, to invade Persia, he wasn’t finished there. Alexander continued to trek across Asia destroying and also improving things throughout his journey. (“History Study Center - Home Page." History Study Center - Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.) After Alexander’s death in 323 B.C the Greek culture flourished throughout Asia where he had conquered. So in some ways Alexander did good to help improve things.

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

Based on how someone defines greatness can change how they look at society. There are many great people doing good to help improve the society we have today. People like doctors are constantly working to keep our society alive. Doctors are great people because they work to save lives of people who are sick. During Alexander’s rule the people needed a king to take over the land captured, but Alexander continued to capture more territory when he could have just stopped and returned to Macedon. ("History Study Center - Home Page." History Study Center - Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.) The people who saw Alexander as great for all of the killing he did would prove that the Macedonian society was violent.  A society has to have people who trust each other to do the right thing.

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

 Time and distance can have a very large impact on someone’s popular perception. In Alexander’s day a person who lived and Macedon would likely think differently of how we see him living in America today. Many of us would see Alexander as a king who made the largest empire in the world whereas someone living in Macedon or Asia might just see him as a ruthless killer who wouldn’t stop conquering land for his empire. Time also changes how we see someone. We can see the overall changes many years after his death. We can see that Alexander also made Greek culture thrive throughout Asia. ("Science, Civilization and Society." Science, Civilization and Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.) Also over time the stories told about Alexander could have been biased and blown out of proportion. Time and distance can really change how we see people and their actions.

Works Cited

Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

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

"Science, Civilization and Society." Science, Civilization and Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

"History Study Center - Home Page." History Study Center - Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

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

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

Konstam, Angus. Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece. New York: Checkmark, 2003. Print.

Alexander the "Great"

1. Did Alexander deserve to be called "great"?

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?

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:

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/>.

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 someones' popular perception?

1.  I believe Alexander did deserve to be called great.  He may have only focused on his army and not so much on his kingdom, but he also did so much for his empire.  His father was assassinated on the day of his sister's wedding and Alexander then announced that he was to be king.  He inherited the Macedon Empire at the age of 20.  He inherited a loyal country and a very devoted army.  Very soon after he obtained the empire, he took on his father's mission to take over Persia, and after he took over Persia he wanted to do so much more and obtain so much more than just the Persian empire.  He planned on doing this but he did not want to leave Macedonia in complete chaos when he left. Alexander wanted to conquer the whole world. (Wepman, 34-36, 39)  He may have only been looking to expand but he was able to make many new cities and changed cultures and made a new culture.   Alexander created so many new cities with at least 70 that have his name intertwined within them, like Alexandria (Wepman, 73).  Alexander created a new culture called Hellenism, and laid the foundations for the new Hellenistic world of territorial kingdoms.  Hellenism fused Oriental and Greek cultures together to create one.  Hellenism was spread throughout the east and the west of Alexandria as well as started to change cultures in those places as well.  Many generals looked up to Alexander to copy his tactics and compare themselves to him, one general that did this was Julius Caesar. During the Hellenistic period Alexander's vision, military skills, and Greek cultures changed the Mediterranean world in many different ways.  His military was made up of Macedonians and Greeks from the League of Corinth.  He had a relatively small infantry of about 30,000 men and a calvary of only about 5,000 men

.  Even with his smaller army he had success after success.  He had so little time to prove how great he really was but from what accomplishments and success he had creating the Hellenistic world and expanding his empire at such a young age,  I believe that he deserves to be called great.

2. One can learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness by taking everything that Alexander did by expanding his empire, and yes killing many people to do so, and apply it to their own lives and situations.  Some people may not believe in killing many others or expansion of an empire and all they want is a good, and loyal king, whereas some others may believe it is better to expand and bring people together and create new cultures and new lives for people even if it means to kill others in the process.   People can learn that it is ok to expand and create new ways of living and new cultures, you don't just have to sit around doing the same thing for your whole life, you can change things to try and make it better.  Society can be all about change if you let and if you don't thats fine but I believe that people can learn a great deal about society from Alexander and his greatness with how he changed society in Macedonia and his empire to make it different, to invite other people into it, and show everyone how versatile a society can be.  Alexander was considered great not only for his military strengths but for what he did with his orientalism and how he changed Greek culture and made new cities, and how he expanded his empire.  

3. I believe that time and distance do effect someone's perception of popularity, I believe that people believe that Alexander was such a great general because he was before his time in military skills. Because many generals looked up to him and compared themselves, and even tried to copy some of his tactics, I believe that the timing made him seem more popular and powerful.  Alexander did things, and used tactics nobody was even remotely thinking about doing, and because of this many of his opponents were not ready for what he had so therefore he always won.  He also did not live long enough to see if other people would catch up with him or maybe even defeat him.  He had a drive and determination to do something so extravagant and unbelievable that no one had a way to stop him from his goal.  With his short term as king, he never got to see what it would be like when the military aspect of things caught back up with him or to even see if his empire would stay together as a whole.  I firmly believe that time and distance has a lot to do with peoples perception of popularity.

Works Cited

Green, Peter, and Peter Green. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. Berkeley: U of California, 1991. Print.

Stobart, J. C., and R. J. Hopper. The Glory That Was Greece: A Survey of Hellenic Culture and Civilization. New York: Hawthorn, 1964. Print.

Wepman, Dennis. Alexander the Great. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. Print.

Emmon, Jim Tschen. “Alexander The Great.” World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web.  

Walbank, Frank. W. “Alexander The Great.” Britannica School High, 2014. Web.

Alexander the Great.Getty Images.History Study Center. Web.

Plutarch. “Alexander.” The Internet Classics Archive, 2014. Web.

Alexander's Lack of Greatness

1. Does Alexander deserve to be called "great"?

No, he doesn't. In a nutshell, Alexander of Macedonia was an egotistical alcoholic that did a poor job of ruling his country and opted to make it bigger instead of trying to solve any real problems. To elaborate on my first point, Alexander was extremely self-centered. All of his conquests during his thirteen years of ruling focused on his own goals. He spent eleven years taking over areas of Egypt, India, and even going so far as Persia. Did his countrymen back in Macedonia want more land? Not really. During Alexander's rule, Macedon was still looked down upon by other Greek city-states, such as Athens and Sparta. Macedonians were considered to be rugged heathens with no culture. That's not entirely incorrect (in comparison to Athens and even Sparta, Macedon was far less sophisticated) but it proves that even when their leader was off conquering the world, his homeland was still suffering. 

Stefano Maggi states that Alexander "showed great leadership ability" (Maggi, 162). However, there are several instances where this does not appear to be true for Alexander. He didn't even control Macedonia - Alexander was away conquering for eleven of his thirteen years as king, leaving his deputy hegemon, Antipater, in charge of their home country. While on his conquest in 326 B.C., Alexander faced a mutiny at the Hyphasis River. His men had been marching through deserts, battled the army of Porus (they were successful), and needed to stop and recuperate before continuing, especially due to the monsoon rains that were about to hit. But Alexander decided to try and force his troops to continue marching further into India; of course, they revolted. Alexander's solution to this problem was to sulk in his tent for three days, and Coenus (the man chosen to voice the soldier's requests) prevailed. They turned back and were allowed to rest. One mutiny left Alexander with no idea about how to control his soldiers or sway them back to his own side - this isn't good leadership. However, Alexander did deal with his second (and last) mutiny in a much better way. 


A marble bust of our lovely friend, Alexander. Acquired in Alexandria, Egypt; estimated to be from the 1st-2nd century B.C.

Alexander dealt with another mutiny just two year later, this time at the Opis River in a location fairly close to Babylon. Alexander told his soldiers that all veterans and injured men would be going back to their homes, and that he had ordered new troops from Macedonia. The older soldiers found this as a rejection of their abilities, and any remaining men didn't want to fight alongside Persians and Iranians (part of Alexander's fusion policy). When Alexander faced this issue, he told his soldiers that foreigners would be coming in and taking over all leadership positions in the army - a bluff. But, this time, his soldiers don't succeed in beating Alexander. They quickly calmed down and followed Alexander's orders.

Another point to consider about Alexander is his obvious drinking issue. "Alexander spurned the over consumption of alcohol early on in his life. However, with his rise to power came an increasingly frequent consumption and abuse of alcoholic beverages", is stated in this article. Alexander was prone to violent outbursts in alcohol-induced mood swings. This became such a common occurrence that he ordered other soldiers to be killed just if he suspected they would potentially try and take his thrown, and no one batted an eye. Alexander killed many of his own soldiers and commanders this way, his consumption of alcohol often leading him to be unstable and reckless. As his dependence on it increased, so did his volatility. This leads me to my next point: Alexander's poor behavior and decision-making skills.

Alexander  never behaved well in the lands he conquered. He was cruel and violent, slaughtering many natives. If Alexander encountered problems that couldn't simply be solved by killing the masses, he threw money at it. One example of this is when Macedonia was attacked while he was on a conquest. Antipater had been left with minimal troops (due to Alexander constantly requesting more) and was unprepared for any sort of attack. Alexander's solution was to give Antipater money, and yes, it worked, but to be fair, the forces that were attacking weren't the worst enemy. It was still poor planning on Alexander's part, and another demonstration of pothos - he left his home in danger and instead kept more men for himself so that battles would be easier. Another example of poor decision-making would be Alexander's decision to let Darius' army go. After meeting and battling, Darius' troops were weakened, as was their leader. However, instead of simply killing his opponent, Alexander decided to leave with his troops and go to Egypt instead. This allowed Darius to regroup and grow stronger, ultimately battling again in Issus, causing the unnecessary deaths of many men. 

To summarize, the amount of land the Alexander conquered was great - Greece, Egypt, Persia, and India. Alexander built one of the largest empires known to man, but he himself was not of great integrity. Alexander was a drunkard obsessed with his own power, and the main thing allowing him to succeed? Luck.  Alexander ruled for just thirteen years, leaving him little time to mess something up. He also didn't have any truly formidable opponents - it wasn't that Alexander's army was fantastic, it was that the others he battled were just mediocre. Alexander was not a great man, but rather one that got lucky and ruled recklessly up until his death.


A painting of Alexander's death. Considering that he died from a fever in 323 B.C., I doubt that he looked this majestic.

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

The things that society considers "great" differ from person to person; some value intelligence, others care about accomplishments, some admire bravery, and there are some that place value in kindness. The fact that Alexander is considered great says very negative things about society as a whole.


A painting of Alexander the Great.

Let me use Walter White from AMC's Breaking Bad as an example. Walter White has done many things that could be considered bad, but for good reasons - at least in the beginning. He gets into the drug business in order to protect his family, but he soon realizes that this "business" is the one thing that he is good at. He's a king, and he loves it; Walter suffers from a similar pothos that Alexander does, forgetting that he's putting others in danger and opting to continue for his own benefit. Many people sympathize with Walter. After all, he's doing this all for other people - he just got lost in the madness down the road. Right?

I don't think so. Walter White is in no way a good person. He attempts to kill children, has killed many innocent people that were unknowing witnesses, and let one of the most important people in his friend's (Jesse's) life die. He is willing to do anything to advance in the risky game of drug dealing and manufacturing, even if that means putting multiple lives at risk instead of simply his own. Walt is manipulative, cruel, and power-hungry. Sound familiar?


Walter White's transformation.  From chemistry teacher to meth-emperor. At least he got a nice hat in the process of losing his family and friends, right?

Despite the awful character that is Walter White, people sympathize with him. People can understand his reasons for falling so deeply and quickly into power. Walter White is similar to Alexander in many ways: both are power-hungry, both tried to build their empires as large as possible, and both were remarkably uncaring towards any casualties along the way. I believe that people could also sympathize with Alexander if his story was presented in a different way. If he got his own five-season show, people might understand his motivations as well. And what does that really say about people? The fact that we are capable of identifying and empathizing with two very corrupted individuals is not a positive thing. Is it possible that all humans are as flawed and bad as Alexander and Walt are? Everyone is flawed, and everyone yearns for control or power in some way or another. But it's a grim thought that so many people in society are willing to accept these - for lack of a better word - villains. Humanity seems to have reached a low point; people are willing to go to extreme lengths in the worst ways to get what they want. But knowing that Alexander was around in 336 B.C., the natural evil in society can't be a new thing. It's always been there, but it appears to have gotten worse - people aren't good anymore. Society is now a mix of everyone simply trying to further themselves, and I get that - I'm part of it, after all. But the lack of concern we have for each other and the overall selfishness that people have now is a dark thought. It's not even a thought, at this point - it's a fact. 

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

Yes, time and distance are both factors in how someone is perceived by the general public. Alexander was sometimes thought to be a god or demigod, and ridiculous rumors spread all over his previous empire. Several common myths include that he was once carried down a mountain by eagles while he was in a basket, another said that he want an a quest for "Water of Youth" and he turned into a mermaid, and one more suggested that his troops once encountered a tribe of headless men. After someone dies, many of the bad things that they did tend to fade away, the good memories shining through instead. If you're at a funeral, people don't typically walk up and start going on about how the person in the casket was selfish or rude or cruel at times. They talk about all the good things, and many of the bad things Alexander did were blocked out and his tales of greatness were exaggerated and told instead. 


A depiction of one of the most popular Alexander myths - Alexander being carried down a mountain by eagles.

Just because someone dies doesn't suddenly make every terrible thing they did okay - when most people think of Alexander, they think about the vastness of his empire and his 100% success rate in battles. These are the things that have survived after his death, and all of his terrible deeds are glossed over. Alexander's massacre of several native peoples along with the lack of exceptional ability in his opponents' troops are important facts that many people ignore or just don't know. Seeing the greatness in life is something that people would rather do - looking in the optimistic side can give you hope for your own life, and that is what happened with Alexander. The people recording his life wanted to believe in his greatness because it can be inspiring and interesting for generations, and in a way, it's not always a bad thing. Yes, it can lead to historical inaccuracies, but it can also bring the world something it lacks in most things - hope. 

Citations:

Wilson, N. G. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Maggi, Stefano. Greece: History and Treasures of an Ancient Civilization. Vercelli, Italia: White Star, 2007. Print.

Lamberton, Robert. Plutarch. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. Print.

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

"Alexander the Great." Princeton University. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander of Macedonia." Alexander of Macedonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Cartledge, Paul. "Hunting for a New Past." BBC News. BBC, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

"Marble Portrait of Alexander the Great." British Museum -. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander the Great's Expeditions." N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"The Role of Alcohol in Alexander's Life." Skidmore. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"Internet History Sourcebooks." Internet History Sourcebooks. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.