Max Jacobs Alexander Response

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

            I believe that Alexander the Great deserves to be called Great because he conquered many Empires, blended many cultures, and was a role model for some historical figures. When he was 12 he tamed an untamable horse named Bucephalus who supposedly devoured the flesh of all that failed to tame him. This showed his father, Philip II, that he had equestrian skills and was fit to be a leader if he could lead a horse like that. He rode Bucephalus into battle after he became king and went to conquer many empires. When he was thirteen he became tutored by Aristotle himself, Aristotle is a very well known Greek Philosopher.

            When his Father left to fight in war against the Greeks Alexander was left in charge at age 16 as King of Macedonia while he was gone. This let the Macedonians gain trust in him as a leader and also show his father, again, that he has very good leading skills. When he was 18 Philip II let Alexander fight as one of the lead Macedonian Generals against the Greeks along side him. “In the spring of 336 BC, with Philip’s Persian invasion already set in motion, the king was assassinated by a young Macedonian noble Pausanias, during the wedding ceremony in Aegae, the old capital of Macedonia.” (Section 2 Paragraphs 1, Link Here). After this Alexander’s close friends killed him shortly after before he could be put in front of the Macedonian Assembly. He also created a new empire called the Hellenistic empire after he died in 323 BC that blended Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, and Macedonian cultures into one whole condensed empire.

            How this makes Alexander Great is the fact that he follows the definitions almost to the word. The definitions of Great are: 1. Great (adj.) - of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average, 2. Great (adj.)- of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average. He did things men of higher strength, mind, and will couldn’t do at all; he did before the age of 20. He conquered more empires in only 13 years that most leaders could have never done in their entire lifetime. He conquered some of the largest, and strongest empires such as Egypt, Persia, and Greece, and blended those cultures together, and was known as the “ Lord of Asia, King of Macedonia, Son of Zeus, and Pharaoh of Egypt.

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

One can learn many things about a society based on its view of greatness. An example of this would be Nazi Germany during WWII. During WWII Nazi Germany was led by a dictator named Adolf Hitler who believed in: “Lebensraum - the need for 'living space' for the German nation to expand. A strong Germany - the Treaty of Versailles should be abolished and all German-speaking people united in one country. Führer - the idea that there should be a single leader with complete power rather than a democracy. Social Darwinism - the idea that the Aryan race was superior and Jews were 'subhuman'. Autarky - the idea that Germany should be economically self-sufficient. Germany was in danger - from Communists and Jews, who had to be destroyed.”(Paragraph 1, Link here). All these beliefs were considered great and true by the citizens of Germany and therefore they had full faith in Hitler that he would rebuild Germany.

            What they didn’t know however is what was going on behind the scenes. Almost none of the citizens, except for highly trusted and highly ranked generals, knew about the concentration camps for the Jewish. These concentration camps killed millions of Jewish people. After this had been going on for a while and as WWII began people began to notice the Nazi’s taking some Jewish citizens and started to wonder where they were taking them. After a while into the war people began to learn that they were taking them to camps where they would be killed or prisoned just because they were Jewish or of small ethnic groups.

            What we can learn about Nazi Germany is that when they think they are the superior race they generally are egotistical and very proud to be a German. This also shows that they feel its ok to purge the Jews and small ethnic groups because they think they are better. However, they nearly killed out all the Jews and it was almost a complete genocide. Therefore, if you think you are great and considered the master race you generally get so caught up in your pride that you commit completely ridiculous and unreasonable acts.

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

            Yes, time and distance impact someone’s popular perception. One example of this would Issus. Issus is a terrorist group that has recently appeared in the Middle East. They are considered more dangerous than Alcaida, however I don’t believe they are more dangerous. I think America considers them more dangerous just because they know nothing about them yet. I think that over time we will learn whether they are more dangerous or not. This shows that the current popular perception is that they are highly dangerous when really everyone could just be assuming they are dangerous because of Alcaida and the events on 9/11. Also, in due time I believe we will have more information on Issus and whether they are a threat or not to America’s safety.

            Another example is Nazi Germany. At first all considered Adolf Hitler great. He was rebuilding Germany after WWI, Helping raise the German spirit, and was bringing many new Ideas to German politics. Sadly, one of those ideas was that the Aryan race was in danger from the Jewish. For a while Hitler seemed like a good person, up until WWII. What started WWII was Germany Invading Poland to try and bring all German Speaking countries together as one country. This was against the treaty of Versailles and so it alerted Great Britain and France and they began to fight about Germany breaking the treaty. After a while into WWII America joined in because it was allied with Great Britain and France. And during WWII America found out that Hitler was capturing Jews and taking them to camps where he would prison, torture, and even kill them.

            So the early common perception of Hitler and Nazi Germany was that it was good, following the treaty of Versailles, and doing almost nothing that would seem bad or inhuman. At the beginning of WWII we learn that he was disobeying the treaty of Versailles, which alerted some of the allied forces and began WWII. My grandma lived in Estonia and when it was captured by Nazi Germany she said she had no idea about the concentration camps. Partway-through WWII America joined in and began to fight against Germany. America later found out about the concentration camps. This shows that time and distance do matter about the common perception of a country’s belief.

Works Cited

Alexander. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html>.

Alexander the Great. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/575648?terms=Alexander+the+Great>.

Alexander the Great. ABC-CLIO eBook Collection. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/575648?terms=Alexander+the+great>.

Alexander the Great Alexander of Macedon Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html>.

BBC. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/nazibeliefsrev1.shtml>.

How “Great” Was Alexander. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>.

Ralph, Philip Lee, et al. World Civilizations. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Eighth Edition.

The Rise of Macedonia and the Conquests of Alexander the Great. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/alex/hd_alex.htm>.

Ward, Mr. Personal interview. 30 Sept. 2014.

Defining A Legacy Blog

Emily Johnson
G Block
Does Alexander deserve to be called great? This question was looked at by Professor Ian Worthington in his paper, "How "Great" Was Alexander". I would like to expand upon Professor Worthington's point where he identifies Alexander as a king, a general, and a leader. In this paper I will be, as Professor Worthington has done, examining some of the aspects of Alexander; however, I will also be looking at another aspect of Alexander. That is, who he was as a person. I will be examining his morals and motives in his actions, as I personally believe this is also a contributing factor of the term "great"

First I will be examining Alexander as a general. There is no doubt that he was a powerful general. He was the commander of an empire that stretched across 3 continents, he kept a strong and purposeful army, with every member of his army moving over 10 to 15 miles every day(Sienkewicz, 154). This is made even more impressive by the fact that the soldier had over eighty pounds of equipment with him at any given time (Sienkewicz, 154). He was bold on the battlefield, once taking on an army with one hundred elephants and large numbers, which he outwitted by sending the infantry first and having his infantry scare the elephants. The elephants then panicked and began attacking their own army, which helped Alexander immensely (Sienkewicz, 155); however, was he great? For another viewpoint I first turn to "The Life of Greece" by Will Durant in which he says "... he forgot then his duties as a general, and plunged ahead into the thickest of the fight.."  all in referencing his absurd love for life threatening situations(Durant, 541). Not only did he charge into battles with disregard for the consequences, Durant also points out his alcoholic manners stating  "His increasing resort to drink as a means of quieting his nerves led him more and more frequently, in his last years, to outbreaks of blind ferocity, followed by brooding fits of violent remorse" (Durant, 541).  Although he had some instances of greatness, these cannot outweigh his selfish and at times idiotic battles, which he fought just for the sake of fighting; nor can his acts of insight outweigh his alcoholic tendencies which ,according to Professor Ian Worthington, had "resulted in him killing.... some of those close to him." Therefore I will accredit him as an intelligent and wise general, but would not, taking into account all his tendencies, grant him the title "great".

Next I will be examining Alexander as a leader.He pronounced himself Pharaoh of Egypt (Wood, 72), was king of Macedonia (Wood, 18) and all the land they occupied, and was a general in charge of many soldiers. There is no doubt he was a powerful leader, but was he a great leader? He united many nations and countries, all coming together under Macedonia (Durant, 542). Alexander was a strong leader, and the rumors and legends surrounding Alexander  prove to us that he was held in high esteem among those who lived not only when he lived, but also long after. Alexander was a Pharaoh of Egypt, a title not easy to achieve. In order to become Pharaoh, he only had one option: to prove he had a parent that was a god (Wood, 72). He must not have thought this strange, as there had been rumors that his father was actually a god from a young age (Wood, 24). Taking into account that he became King at twenty, and led Macedonia for twelve years until he died(Wood, 18), I find him to be a great leader, because he led an empire, was a leader for over one-third of his life, and influenced people greatly.

I now must look at Alexander as a King. Alexander became a King at twenty (Wood, 18) but was obviously more preoccupied with being a general, as he transferred his power over Macedonia to Antipater when he left on military business. This shows a lack of concern for the country he is supposed to be governing and watching over, and does not convince anyone that he is a great king.He had no significant heir to put in power after his death, and as such he allowed for his military commanders to quarrel and fight over his land after his death. This proves how little he cared about continuing and upholding his blood line to the throne, and shows even further how little he cared about his kingship, and as such I do not find him to be a "great" king.

Finally I will be examining Alexander by his morals and try to use his actions to find out whether or not he was a great person. Meriam Webster defines great in a sense of the word as "markedly superior in character or quality; especially :  noble<great of soul>", and I will try to find if Alexander can be found under this definition. Alexander was certainly not a particularly kind person, as when he gained power after his fathers death, one of the first things he did was to brutally murder Philip's second wife and child. (Wood, 24) This shows an unseemly side of Alexander, one that indicates he was violent and overly aggressive person. "In The Footsteps Of Alexander The Great" by Michael Wood describes Alexander as "....he [Alexander] exhibited an sadistic malevolence towards those who crossed him." (Wood, 29). This quote is not without reason as Plutarch, a historian had said "he [Alexander] would.. become offensively arrogant" (Wood, 29) because of these instances and remarks about experiences with him I cannot be led to believe that he is a great person.

Although Alexander had some aspects that were certainly great- his leadership, his legend and the rumors surrounding him, and his impact on the world- he was not, overall, great. He was a successful general, but not a great one. He was a great leader, but not a great king or person. His influence was large, but I did not find him to be a "great" enough person, king, or general to deserve the title "The Great" after every reference of him.

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness? When looking at a society, one can gather much from their views of greatness. One can learn what they think of as important, what they put the majority of their effort into, and in some cases, the morals of that society.

I take as my example the United States of America in the present day. In the United States of America, most of the things revolve around social standing, power, or wealth; and although these things are true for many other countries as well, I take this country as my example because I have the most knowledge of the values of The United States. In this country, the majority of things that are important revolve around these three things. For example, the stock market- a vital part American news, concern, and worry- is about maintaining, gaining, or losing wealth. This shows that we value money, as those who attain money through the stock market are considered great businessmen. The President of the United States is considered great because he has power and social standing, showing that these are important to the United States. 

In the United States, much effort is spent on appearing of high social standing, of appearing powerful, of appearing wealthy. Money is spent on brand names like "Coach" purses, when they could get a much less expensive purse of the same quality. So then:Why would someone buy a Coach purse over another purse of equal quality for less money? Because something with a brand name is considered higher class and, supposedly, appears more wealthy. People spend money and effort to gain power; political advertisements are a good example of this. People spend money and effort to gain power in political advertisements. 

The morals of our society are also shown in what we see as great. That is, someone powerful, wealthy, and of high social standing would be considered great. This indicates that we are a very materialistic society. Our definition of great shows at least a few of our morals, and indicates what parts of life we emphasize.

I believe that our definition and views of greatness show many aspects of our society, including what we place extra effort and emphasis on in our society, what we find important, and what morals we value. I believe that all these things can be found in a society's definition of greatness because greatness implies that it is the highest point one can achieve, and this shows what we, in general, want to achieve.

Do time and distance impact someone's popular perception? I think that time and distance do alter someone's popular perception because they allow for things to become embellished or decreased in influence. Time and distance also allow for people to think more critically and logically, as often at the exact time of an event there are many emotions that can impact opinions. After an event has passed, people can often think more clearly because the emotional, spur of the moment opinions have stopped and this often leads to a changed perspective.

I see this often in powerful leaders. For example, Fidel Castro had power and popularity in Cuba,  but time and distance have allowed the public to think of him as a strict dictator. Another example would be Adolf Hitler, who was voted Times' "Man Of The Year" for 1938. Time and distance have allowed the public to see Hitler for who he really was: an awful tyrant, a maniac, and a murderous madman. These examples show clearly how time and distance can alter a persons perception.

Because I have seen many examples of time and distance altering someone's popular perception, I think that time and distance certainly alter a persons popular perception. Time and distance allow for things to be altered to people's misconceptions of them and can cause a large distance in what really happened and what people think happened. This change of ideas and events can lead people's popular perception of someone to change.







MLA CITATIONS
Wood, Michael. In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great: A Journey from Greece to Asia. Berkeley: U of California, 1997. Print.

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

Durant, Will. The Life of Greece: Being a History of Greek Civilization from the Beginnings, and of Civilization in the Near East from the Death of Alexander, to the Roman Conquest ; with an Introduction on the Prehistoric Culture of Crete. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1939. Print.

"Alexander's Legacy (Overview)." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., 1999. Web. 01 Oct. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>

Mercer, Charles E. Alexander the Great. New York: American Heritage Pub.; Book Trade Distribution by Meredith; Institutional Distribution by Harper & Row, 1963. Print.

Levon Fletcher
G Block
September 29, 2014

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

I think Alexander does not deserve to be called "Great".  Other than his battles won, and conquers of states he was not a great man.  He was more of just a commander than a king.  He lead his people into battle, but could not show them the example of a true leader.  Even with his many great wins in battle he put the Macedonians in bad conditions.  In the war of Agis III of 331 he left only 13,500 Macedonian soldiers with Antipater.  This was a perfect chance for other states to attack the Macedonian people.  Instead of sending soldiers back home to protect, he asked for more to be sent off to war.  The people started to worry, and to make them feel comforted he just sent them money.  He gave the people money as if that would protect them.  Another problem with Alexander is that he was a drunk.  When drunk he would throw violent tempers and kill his own friends!  What man that kills his own friends and people should be consider great?  Alexander also brought trouble into other states and countries. He would slaughter natives of other conquered states. For example when the Tyrians resisted him he slaughtered the males, and sold the females and children into slavery.  He destroyed the Persian culture.  He raged their city and took over.  Forcing them to fight for him in his wars, he raged Persepolis after getting drunk.  He let his social ranking get to his head.  He tried to enforce Proskynesis on his people, which made them bow before him as if he was a God.  The people didn't believe in this.   Alexander should not be called great because most of his actions weren't great at all and hurt everybody around him.

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

 One can learn the differences in society based off their view off greatness.  When a person looks at one as a great, then looks at another as not such a great they realize the differences between the people.  People usually look at someone great for the things they have accomplished, as some look at Alexander.  But then when they look at the person that really hasn't accomplished much in life they view them as a nobody.  That one that they view great is really equal to the "nobody" in society.  The only difference is that the one they view great has had a bigger impact.  So based off who you view as a great you will realize the difference between others in society.

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

 Time and distance does impact someone's popular perception.  For the people that was there to live in the time with Alexander they have a better perception on him.  They had the chance to view his actions up close.  Now people in this time have a choice on their perception, because of papers written and information gathered on Alexander.  The information given could not be all true, causing a person to have the wrong perception.  Time and distance in our generation causes us to not be able to expierence time with Alexander.  So we really don't know the truth of his actions.  Time and distance has a big impact on a person's popular perception.

Citations 

Varin, Andra. "What Made Alexander So Great?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 24 Nov. 2004. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander the Not so Great." BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

"Pothos.org." - Introduction to Alexander the Great. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

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

"Leadership Wired Blog." The John Maxwell Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

Alexander the Great

Varun Nadella

10/1/14

G Block

1) Does Alexander deserve to be called great? 

Alexander deserves to be called "great" for a number of things. He accomplished many tasks that other people couldn’t and was a general, statesman, and king while doing it. He conquered many cities and land including the whole Persian Empire and founded the Hellenistic Culture. From since he was a kid he was taught literature, geography, and science by Aristotle and learned to ride a horse, use weapons, and command troops (Textbook). His Father was king of Macedon from age 23 and was a brilliant general  and had conquered Greece (Source). Alexander took power at age 20 when his father killed. For the next 13 years, Alexander would prove himself to be great.
 When he took power, he decided to go on with his father’s plan of invading Persia. Alexander invaded Persia in 334 B.C. with 35,000 troops. His first battle was the Battle of Granicus against 40,000 Persians, the two armies met at the Granicus River and fought and Alexander won. At the second battle against the Persians, Alexander faced an army of 50,000-75,000 Persian troops at Issus. At the Battle of Issus, Alexander knew he was outnumbered so he surprised his foes by breaking through a weak point in the Persian lines and charged at Darius. Darius fled and this gave Alexander another win against the Persian army and control over Anatolia. Alexander was very smart and tactiful when he was a general. After this, Alexander saw the rapid collapse of Persian Resistance and decided to conquer the whole Persian Empire. He marched into Egypt which was controlled by Persia and freed them and founded a city named Alexandria on the Nile. After this, he marched into Mesopotamia to conquer the rest of the Persian Empire. He again met Darius at Gaugamela except this time Darius had 250,000 troops, but again Alexander was able to defeat him and Darius fled and this victory ended Persia's power. Alexander then went and killed Darius and took over the rest of the Persian Empire's land then kept conquering land east until they decided to stop and turn around after conquering some of India (Textbook). Overall, Alexander conquered the whole Persian Empire and a little more and made it is own Empire. He was able to defeat an Empire that no other kingdom could beat and Alexander beat them 3 times and completely demolished their power. When he conquered all the land from Greece to India, he founded many cities which he named Alexandria. This showed how great of a general or military leader he was and that his army wasn't just some typical army. He showed that he can build and rule an Empire. 
Alexander didn't just conquer and make a vast Empire, he also made a new culture called the Hellenistic Culture. When Alexander conquered all of the land from Egypt to India, from conquering all that land, the cultures from all those different places kind of blended together creating the Hellenistic Culture. The Greek culture was blended with Egyptian, Persian, and Indian influences. The language of the culture was Koine which allowed people to communicate throughout cities in the Hellenistic World (Textbook). The main city of the Hellenistic Civilization was the Alexandria in Egypt. This Alexandria had a famous museum and library that were extraordinary and were major attractions of the city. This culture is the main culture of Alexander's Empire. This is a reason why he is great, he basically created all of this, he made the city Alexandria and the culture by building his empire and bringing all the other cultures into it. He had created a new way of life for people, a diverse way of life. 
 As you can see from all the things that he has done, he surely deserves to be called "great". He was a fantastic general where he defeated the most powerful Empire and conquered all of its land. He won battles where he faced large masses of troops that outnumbered him. His Empire stretched from Greece all the way to India. And lets not forget that he was also a good king. He created many cities in his empire and tried to unite them with roads. And he created the Hellenistic Culture for his Empire by bringing in all the different cultures from the land he conquered, he created a new diverse culture for his people. Alexander accomplished many things in his lifetime. He was a good general and a good king. He did things that no other human being could do. So, why shouldn't he be called "great"?

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

      One can learn many things about the values of society based on their views of greatness. For example, Alexander was considered great mainly for conquering the Persian Empire and creating a vast empire of his own. In Alexander's time, great was considered being a powerful general or having an empire, so they valued military and kingdoms. But say in our time, we value being great such as helping the poor out in a big way or creating something that will innovate technology. Examples of this could be Steve Jobs who founded Apple and created a whole new operating system or Mother Teresa who helped the poor. By looking at what people value as great in their time, we can see what characteristics they valued. We can see what they think would be a great person  and what they would want to be in the future. We can see what they want the world to be in the future and what they want other people to be like. So overall, we can learn many things about what a society values, by learning what they value, we can see what is important to them in their life. 

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

             Yes, time and distance does impact someone's popular perception. Time and distance plays a major role in how important something or someone can be. For example the Dalai Lama, when the Dalai Lama was fighting for Tibet's freedom from China in the 1950s, he sent for help to Great Britain and the U.S. and they didn't help him. People didn't really know who the Dalai Lama was then and they thought that him and Tibet weren't important and decided to focus on more important matters. But now, we see him as a very important figure and we are trying to help him and his country gain their independence. Now he is well known and respected all over the world. But back then because of time and distance, we didn't know who the Dalai Lama was because we didn't know him for a very long time and because he was so faraway and in a place where nobody knew much about, so only people that were close to him and knew him for a while like China and India knew who he was. But now over time, we are able to see who the Dalai Lama really is and see how important he is because now we have known him for a while and can communicate with him from a long distance. Distance is important because if we are a long way away from a person, then we can't really see that person and see who they are and learn about them. Time is also important for a person's perception, it allows us overtime to see what kind of person they are and draw a conclusion of who they actually are. These things are very crucial to a person's perception because it can effectively change how we see the person and other people's opinions about the person. Another example is Alexander the Great. Today overtime, we see him as a great person because of the many accomplishments he achieved, we concluded who he was overtime and know he is known for his achievements. But back then people saw him differently. Back then people actually knew what kind of person he was because they were close to him and he wasn't dead yet. Then Alexander wasn't all that great, people saw him as a murderer and a horrible general. He didn't care much for his troops as he kept pushing them to march through Asia and he was a drunk who killed people randomly and thought he was superior and that everybody should worship him (Source). So since he died before and we didn't know who he was that well, we just decided to know him for his accomplishments because we never actually knew him or what he was like and that was all that was written in the books. But back then, people actually knew him and so they had a different point of view about him in their mind. So overall, time and distance is very crucial to a person's popular perception. These things can change a person's perception almost entirely different and change whether they are a great person or not. They play a big role in determining what we see of a person. 

Works Cited

"Alexander the Great." History.com. A&E Television Networks. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander's Legacy (Overview)." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2004. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Results?q=1185179>.

Beck, Roger B., Linda Black, Larry S. Kreiger, Philip C. Naylor, and Dahia Ibo Shabaka. "Classical Greece." World History: Patterns of Interactions. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 142-49. Print.

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2004. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Results?q=575648>.

"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

Vivante, Bella. Events That Changed Ancient Greece. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002. Print.

Dominick Lioce
9/26/14


1) Does Alexander deserve to be called great?

No I think that Alexander doesn't deserve to be called great in any sense but being a good general. He was a very great general, he was a quick thinker and had vast knowledge of battle strategies. This was because his personal tutor was Aristotle (M. Schlesinger jr., 21), who was the greatest thinker of their time. Although he was a great general he had many flaws. Including greediness, his total disregard for other human life, and his temper. He was greedy because he never wanted to stop conquering land. After taking over most of the surrounding empires he wanted to invade india, he would've succeeded in this if his troops hadn't stopped supporting him because they were worked very hard. We know that he didn't care about anyones lives but his people and him because during all his wars, and battles, he killed any single person that got in his way. In other words he didn'tcare who died, as long as he got what he wanted. A perfect example of this was when he killed his uncle for saying "whilst he fights women, I fight men!", this was wildly uncalled for. He wasn't great also because his temper controlled him, "Alexander the Great was prone to fits of savage tempers and in later life he succumbed to megalomania", megalomania is a condition in which one thinks that they control every facet of everything, in todays world there are some megalomaniacs, some being part of a regime, and some dictators, like Kim Jong Il, Hitler, stalin, Mussolini. After knowing all of this would you still believe that alexander is great? I hope not, because anyone that who is a greedy, angry, control freak, is no one that I would describe as great.

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

To me the values of society are all about, your character, your ability to lead, and your selflessness. Alexander only had one of these traits. Yes, Alexander was a fantastic military leader, but that was his only good trait. His motives were flawed, and his greed and temper was out of control. We know his motives were flawed because all he cared about was money (M. Schlesinger jr., 87). He was very greedy, Him and his men after the battle of Persepolis were said that "The Macedonians spent the whole day in pillage but still could not satisfy their inexhaustible greed." this shows that he was a good military strategist, but he was a horrible leader. All Alexander cared about was land. One could compare Alexander to Hitler, Hitler wanted everyone to be a certain way, he had a "perfect race" in mind, blond hair blue eyes. Alexander wanted everyone to be greek in a way. Even though Macedonia was technically not a greek place. Alexanders society thought he was great, but that was a biased opinion, any other society at the time would've greatly disapproved of Alexanders actions. Just like no other country approved of what Hitler did. Throughout Alexanders life he has killed family, friends and tens of thousands of people. He has led his army to victory, but this empire he created dint last long, because it lacked leadership. Alexander didn't have a plan for after he conquered all of this land, it lacked leadership. Leadership being the most important quality in a society, one quality which alexander only excelled in on the battlefield.




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

Because Alexanders reign was so long ago theres no really good way to know what his people thought of him but there are some very good theories. I think that at the time Alexander seemed a lot worse because in present day we have worse things to compare him to, Hitler, stalin, napoleon.  For example we think of hitler as a horrible person, most people outside of Germany do, but some germans don't feel that way. To relate this to Alexanders time period, the persians probably hated what Alexander was doing, but probably every Macedonian was okay with Alexander taking over most of the east. Yes, I think that both time and distance impact ones perception on Alexander, because if your not part of his country, you most likely would not like what he did, and if you are decades after Alexander you wouldn't like what he did. This is also a main reason that alexander was called great, the only people that would give him that nickname is himself or his people. If no one else really liked him or what he did, and his people called him great, isn't that opinion biased? Theres too much evidence saying that Alexander as a whole person was  not great.

Works Cited

Worthingson, Ian, Professor. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Professor Ian Worthington, n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>.

"Alexander the Great." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.ushistory.org/civ/5g.asp>.

"Why Alexander the Great Is Not History's Greatest Leader." Military History Monthly. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.military-history.org/intel/alexander-the-great-historys-greatest-leader.htm>.

"Alexander's Legacy (Overview)." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.

"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>.

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