Is Alexander "Great"? By: Josh Hall

Does Alexander deserve to be called "Great"?

Alexander does deserve to be called “great.” Most people know Alexander as a great general, as this is for what he is most-known. However, Alexander was a great king and ruler. Alexander was the king of Macedonia from 336-323 B.C. and was king of Persia from 330-323 B.C. (Adkins, 42) Alexander didn’t just conquer a city and leave it right away. He would sometimes stay and improve it. Alexander built many great cities in some of the lands he conquered. He named all of these cities Alexandria. (Loverance and Wood, 44) As a ruler, Alexander never lost a battle. Even though he only ruled for 13 years, it is still impressive that he didn’t lose one battle his entire life.

Growing up, Alexander was tutored by Aristotle. Aristotle inspired him with an interest of philosophy, medicine, and scientific education. He also prepared him for undertaking campaigns of the Persian Empire. Alexander was the son of Philip II. Philip was the king of Macedonia from 359-336 B.C. However, when Alexander was 20, Philip was assassinated, and Alexander became king. He stayed in Macedonia for two years before leaving the country to begin his conquest. His first goal was to liberate the Greek cities along the Ionian Coast from Persian control. After successfully doing this, he began conquering the Persian Empire. At the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander defeated the Persians, thus ending the Persian Empire. After Darius III was murdered by Bessus, Alexander became king of Persia. (Adkins, 44) After defeating the Persians, Alexander did not return home. He continued his conquest all the way to India. Along the way, Alexander founded eight cities named Alexandria, was named king of Egypt, and conquered Asia Minor. While Alexander was in Egypt, he made Alexandria the capital. Alexandria had a population of one million people, and it became busy and prosperous. The city also had many museums and libraries where some of the greatest philosophers studied. (Robinson and Greenberg, 55) Alexander’s empire grew to be one of the largest empires in the Ancient world.

Alexander died in Babylon in 323 B.C. after becoming ill with malaria. Alexander left behind one of the largest empires ever created. He had spread Greek culture across his empire, making it more well-known in the ancient world. Alexander is one of the greatest generals and rulers to ever live. Not only did he create one of the largest empires in the world, he improved cities and spread the Greek culture. These reasons are why Alexander does deserve to be called “great.”

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

The Macedonians considered Alexander “great,” even though he killed many people. This reveals that the Macedonian society was violent. Alexander conquered much land, and the Macedonians supported him. This reveals that the society valued having control over much of the land in the ancient world. The Macedonian society valued Alexander and his greatness. Many of the people in the ancient world also considered Alexander “great.” Some societies even began to worship Alexander as a god. (Levi, 178) Alexander, however, proved his greatness by building one of the largest empires ever. He spread the Greek culture all throughout his empire. For the societies that considered Alexander “great,” it reveals that their society was violent and that they valued land and power. 
There were some cities that did not view Alexander as a “great” ruler. These people did not think Alexander was as powerful as established. Some cities, such as Thebes and Athens, even revolted. However, they were both defeated. (Adkins, 43) These cities that revolted did not think Alexander was powerful enough to defeat them. The values of their societies based on their view of greatness is that they did not care about ruling a bunch of land. These cities valued the arts, government, and education more than they cared about having a large empire. As you can see, you can determine what a society’s values are based on its view of greatness.

Do time and distance impact a person's popular perception?

Time and distance definitely does impact someone’s popular perception. Today, there are some people who still consider Alexander great. Even after over 2,000 years have passed since Alexander’s reign, no one today truly knows who Alexander was as a person. As a result, we are very distanced from him. The people of Alexander’s time know more about Alexander. They knew if he was cruel to many people and if he truly was “great.” Some people who were close to him, like the Macedonians, did consider Alexander as a great general and great ruler. Alexander was named King of Egypt right when he arrived in the city. The people of Egypt obviously considered Alexander great because he was named king without a fight. Other cities, like Thebes and Athens, revolted against Macedonia and Alexander. (Adkins, 43) They were badly defeated. After he defeated Thebes, he killed 6,000 soldiers and sold the rest of them as slaves. Today, we view Alexander as a completely different person than the people of the ancient world did. Some people may think that Alexander was a ruler who only cared about how much power he had or how much land he owned. This is not a correct way to view Alexander because he did stop in cities that he conquered to improve them. If he was this ruler who only cared about his power and land, he would never have stopped in these cities. He founded eight cities on his campaign, and they were all named Alexandria. (Loverance and Wood, 44) As you can see, time and distance does impact someone’s popular perception. The way Alexander was viewed back then is not the same as how we view him today because our view is based on what we read, not what we see.

Works Cited

Adkins,Lesley, and Roy A. Adkins. Handbook to Life in Ancient Greece. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

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

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

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

Loverance, Rowena, and Tim Wood. Ancient Greece. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Viking, 1993. Print.

Reynolds, Clark G. "Alexander the Great." Great Lives from History: The Ancient World, Prehistory-476 c.e.. Ed. A. Salowey Christina. 2 vols. Salem Press, 2008. Salem History Web. 24 Sep. 2014.

Robinson, Charles Alexander, and Lorna Greenburg. Ancient Greece. New York: F. Watts, 1984. Print.

"Alexander the Great"

Was Alexander Great?

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?

1. Alexander of Macedonia is know as "Alexander the great", but what makes him so great? Is it the fact that Aristotle was his tutor. Over his short life he conquered most of the know Asia.When he was 18 he took over the Calvary. Alexander was a military genius. When he was 20 he attacked Persia, something his father who was king before him was never able to do.  When Alexander was conquered Persia he marched up the east coast to catch them off guard, The year 335 BC Alexander subdued people in the North and West of Macedonia, he was 21. Does the fact that when he battled Persia he was able to defeat them quickly make him great. Also when he was going through Asia he did not ever have a defeat. The next year (334 BC) Alexander crossed Hellensport into Asia with 35,000 to humble Persia.When he was 25 he was the king of persia . Also the fact that Alexander let Cities keep local governors, customs, and taxes, this. Alexander also established many cities such as Alexandria. To me Alexander was great because of how far he had come in his short life of 32 years but thats doesn't mean everybody agrees with me. Alexander of Macedonia was great in my eyes.
2. Every one can learn something from the past. They can learn what not to do and what is good for a society. A lot of Army Generals, and Leaders can learn a great deal from Alexander. Like how land he conquered in a short amount of time. Even though his empire didn't last long after he pasted away, it broke off into 3 smaller empires. Everyone can learn something from the past especially from Alexander.
3. Yes, I believe time and distance impacts someone's population perception. Alexander conquered a large amount land in such a short amount of time. Alexander is know worldwide because of how much land he conquered and how long it took him to gain control of it.  

Works Cited

"Alexander the Great." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://www.biography.com/people/alexander-the-great-9180468#synopsis>.

"Alexander the Great." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. <http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/alexander-the-great>.

"Alexander the Great(356-323 BC)." BBC News. BBC. Web. 27 Sept. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/alexander_the_great.shtml>.

"Welcome." Salem Press. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://history.salempress.com>.

Alexander--Great or Nah?

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.

I acknowledge the fact that Alexander conquered Persia and inspired Hellenistic culture, because these achievements are truly great. Alexander as a person, however, was not. Someone who kills friends and family members shouldn't be considered great. Nor should a person who murders thousands of innocent women and children (Arron, Lysippus 74) just to prove a point. Alexander was a drunk and a murderer who happened to be a magnificent general and a king who knew how to make his land prosper. In 324 B.C, Alexander returned to Susa (Adkins 43) to find disloyalty among the people. He purged the city mercilessly. Alexander also forced his officers into marriages with Persian women (Grant 88). Above all, Alexander's orientalism caused him to ask that he be treated like a god by the Greeks; he requested they bow down to him which was a custom that Greeks only did  for gods or fallen heroes. A "great" person is one treated with respect by all, and this Alexander was not. Not by the Thebans, whom he killed and sold as slaves; not by the Susans, whom he purged; not by his own soldiers, whom he forced to marry women of a foreign country.

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>.

How Great was Alexander of Macedon?

An Analysis of the Greatness of Alexander by Tristen Hunnewell

Question #1:

Does Alexander deserve to be called "Great"?

        Alexander of Macedon undoubtedly deserves to be called "Great", and for a number of reasons. One reason for this being the shear amount of land that he gained control in just the thirteen short years of his kingship. Alexander currently stands second in the world for the amount of land, which happens to be about 2,180,000 square miles, that he captured. This massive amount of land is extremely impressive, but the way it was obtained may be even more so. Each battle Alexander fought in he was often outnumbered by the opposing force. Alexander, being a great strategist though, never lost a single one of the battles that he embarked on. He even went so far as to lead the front phalanx himself, most likely to raise the morale of his soldiers to encourage them to fight harder.(Grossman, p.12) Military conquest is often the only thing that defines Alexander, and while it is in fact great it may not impress some.

Above a mosaic depicts Alexander of Macedon
charging into battle at the head of a deadly phalanx.

        For those people though, there are an abundance of reasons for the greatness of Alexander that lie in the culture of ancient Greek and Asian societies. Alexander's military conquest was not simply to destroy Persia, but also to join the places that he conquered together by a common culture. The name of this was Hellenistic culture, a culture that joined those of Greece, India, Egypt, and Persia.(Beck, p.146) Alexander would bring scholars of different cultures into his company to help him spread his new ways. Scholars like these often settled in the Alexandria in which Alexander's tomb now resides. This transformed Alexandria into the hub of trade that emerged from the spread of a common culture. Even though Alexander didn't live to see the strengthening of his city we can still credit him with the achievement, for it was his foundation from which Hellenistic cities like Alexandria sprouted from.  

Question #2:   

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

        One can learn much about values of the ancient Macedonian society from their view of the greatness of Alexander. Main value of these being a strong general to triumph over foreign powers in battle. We can observe this view from the 11 year military excursion that Alexander lead being his reign, for it was the main accomplishment of Alexander's entire time as leader of Macedon.(Grossman, p.13) So therefore we can conclude that the biggest factor taken into consideration when accessing the greatness of Alexander, and the overall definition of the word was almost entirely based on military strength. This occurs because in an ancient society, such as Macedon, for the simple reason that military strength would have been the best way to strengthen a country.

Above an image shows the phalanx formation used
by Alexander to devastate his opponents.

        We can also see from the Macedonians view of great that it was important to be connected to the cultures of foreign lands. Alexander made special stops along his route to Persia for this very reason of spreading the new Hellenistic culture.(Cooke,p.146-147) This shows that Macedonian society was not only one of immense military strength, but one of diverse cultural aspects as well.      

Question #3:

Do distance and time impact someone's popular perception?

       Distance and time are perhaps the biggest impact on the popular perception of an individual, for the daily life in society changes on an excremental level as the years progress. Although there are a few in today's world that think Alexander great, but many today would challenge my stated opinion of the

Above a map demonstrates the total mass of land gained
during the conquest of Alexander the Great

greatness of Alexander. In modern times Alexander may be considered as a crazed man who's only purpose in life was war and land gain. They looking at this from a modern point of view though, and that, in no way, even comes close to the right way of analyzing Alexander. It is absolutely necessary to examine an event with the views of that time period, for the world is always changing and advancing. When a society has advanced multiple hundreds of years in the future the interactions within it are going differ in extreme ways.

We live in a society today where we are surrounded by technology, and the jobs that technology bring have carried civilizations out of a warring nature. Now it could possibly be argued that our society is still one of war and death, but it is not at all compared to the past. This why we must examine the conquest of Alexander from the aspect of around 356 BC, and once that is done it can be seen that military was a very important part of society. If we then apply this to Alexander there is no argument to challenge the greatness of Alexander. The land he conquered in the amount of time that he did has been unmatched throughout history. His strategic brilliance has been admired and immensely studied by some of the greatest generals to ever live, including the French general Napoleon Bonaparte. Alexander should be considered great, but today's views of what society should be like challenge that opinion. That is how as time passes the reputation of a great leader becomes tainted with accusations that only reflect the views of a modern world.

Works Cited

Beck, Roger B., Linda Black, and Larry S. Krieger. McDougal Littell World History: Patterns of Interaction. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell, 2007. Print.

Chesser, Preston. "EHistory: HistoryList: 10 Men Who Conquered the Most Square Miles." EHistory: HistoryList: 10 Men Who Conquered the Most Square Miles. Ohio State University. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/ListPreviewOnly.cfm?LID=43&PreviewOnly=yes&public=yes>.

Cooke, Tim. The New Cultural Atlas of the Greek World. New York: Marshall Cavendish Reference, 2010. Print.

Emmons, Jim T. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/575648?terms=Alexander+the+Great>.

Grossman, Mark. World Military Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Facts On File, 2007. Print.

Lacher, Nathaniel J. "Alexander and Napoleon: How Small Decisions in the Largest Battles Changed the Course of History." Http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.olivet.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1000%26context%3Dhist_maph>.