Alexander the Great Blog

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

Alexander the Great, the King of Macedonia and conqueror of the Persian Empire is considered one of the greatest military geniuses of all times. But does Alexander actually deserve to be called “great”. In my opinion I think that Alexander does deserve to be called great for the many achievements he accomplished throughout his lifetime. Alexander's father, Philip, chose Aristotle to instruct his 13-year-old son. Aristotle taught Alexander geography, science, and literature. Alexander also became a commander at the age of 18 and 2 years later he became king when his father was assassinated. He first quelled the rebellions that were occurring in Greece with such brutality that it dispelled the thought of rebellion from other Greek states. Then he marched onto Persia with an army of 35,000 men and conquered the Persian Empire in 2 short years (Source).  Alexander moved on even further and captured Egypt and set up the city Alexandria. It became a cosmopolitan, diverse, bustling center of trade, the arts, and ideas (Source). 

Now some people might say that Alexander was a horrible person. That he was ruthless; had no mercy to his enemies and killed everyone in his way. Also that he was autocratic in his ideas of what a king should be, and that he should be acclaimed as a god. Even though all of these are true we must overlook these and see the great things he did in his short life time. Alexander wasn't only great for his military brilliance and the fact that he ruled the largest empire in the empire world (Source). Once he died, a new era was formed because of him. The Hellenistic culture was a mix of Greek, Egyptian, Persian, and Indian influences. There was a common language spoken, Kione, and this allowed people and traders to communicate in cities throughout the Hellenistic world. The successes that Alexander achieved were nothing compared to the formation of the Hellenistic world. This truly enabled Alexander to deserve the title of “great”. (History Text book) 

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

There is much we can learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness. The Macedons saw "greatness" in people that were conquerors and how big their empire was. They valued strength and power over arts. They saw greatness in Alexander because of his ability to conquer land efficiently. However, in a place like Athens their values were far different. Athens saw "greatness" in people that were great scholars and philosophers. They respected artists and authors and had a great sense of passion for plays. In the society of Athens one can see that they value arts and literature, science and knowledge. They want people to be creative and find what they really enjoy in life. These example show how what a society views as "great" greatly affects their daily values.

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

                Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of India’s independence movement while the British ruled over India. Ghandi was widely known for his non-violent protests against British rule. He was jailed multiple times because of his actions and did not object to any of his punishments. Ghandi was considered great because of his commitment to non-violence people like MLK Jr. were inspired by Ghandi and followed on the same path. The type of greatness that Ghandi was known for would be highly respected in our world today (Source).  Alexander however, was great because of never losing a war, defeating the Persians, and conquering the biggest Empire in the world. Back then people used to think that the more land that you conquered the stronger and better you are. Now days if a leader conquers territories of other countries such actions are frowned upon by the rest of the world (Source). 

                Gandhi was known to be a great man throughout all of his life, he was an anti-war activist for a majority of his life, studied law, and even went to South Africa for 20 years to oppose discriminatory legislation against Indians (Source).  Alexander on the other hand was only alive of 33 years. In his life time he accomplished many amazing tasks but because he lived such a short life no one got to see what happen. Alexander died at the peak of his success, he hadn't lost a single war and he ruled the largest empire in the world (Source). No one got to see what happened to Alexander’s rein 30 years later because he had died. For all we know if Alexander hadn't died from a “fever” then he might as well have lost every war after.

Citations

"Alexander the Great." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://www.ushistory.org/civ/5g.asp>. 

Bialo, Ellen. "career of Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.

World History: Patterns of Interaction Florida. N.p.: Holt McDougal, 2012. Holt McDo. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. <http://my.hrw.com/tabnav/controller.jsp?isbn=9780547521084>.

Worthinton, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. 

<http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>.

"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2014. Web. 30 Sep. 2014. 

Alexander the Not So Great

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

          Does "Alexander the Great" deserve his title? What does it truly mean to be great? My perception of great is a great person all around, not just a few great things within a person. Although he was thought to be a great military leader, his methods and motives were not so great. I don't think Alexander truly deserves to be called "Great." I'm sure there are people in this world that can justify his actions and see him as Alexander the Great but I am not one. Should someone be praised for being a selfish and paranoid alcoholic? Alexander did many great things during his years, but they weren't necessarily for the right reasons. 
          Alexander had many great qualities and accomplished many things in his life time, but also had many awful qualities and did many cruel things in his life. As a young boy, Alexander was educated by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and was thought to be a philosophical idealist. There's a famous story about Alexander taming a horse, at the age of just 13, that no one else could and was praised by everyone for it (Brophy, James M. Ch. 4). This showed the confidence and greatness within him, which is contradicted in his actions later on in his life. When Alexander became king at the young age of 20 and inherited the power over Macedon, he became consumed with his own power. He would sacrifice anyone and anything if it meant he was going to get what he wanted. He is responsible for bringing together Greece, Persia, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, and India, but in doing this he was also responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of his own men due to his selfish and reckless behavior. One man named Cleitus agreed with my opinion on Alexander and said to him that he was not great and that he turns his back to fighting himself but sacrifices his own men with no regret. This shows Alexander's cowardliness, and that he does not deserve to be called "Great" and definitely not a god. Alexander then proved everything Cleitus had said by going into a drunken rage and murdering him (Brophy, James M. Ch. 4). Do great people murder others? 

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

          People in society have different values and views of what is “great.” While some people who valued material things such as the money and land Alexander had to offer, others valued morals and saw that Alexander and his actions were not great. Cleitus is an example of someone who saw through Alexander’s so called “greatness” and realized that his actions were selfish (Brophy, James M. Ch. 4). The men who saw and praised Alexander as a god were the ones whose values were in the wrong place.
          One society will never agree on one specific opinion, there will always be at least one person who sees it a different way. In this case, people that were new to Alexander’s ruling just saw him as a great ruler who would help them and their society, but people who had been under his rule from the start were beginning to catch on to his megalomaniac personality and were becoming fed up with it. 

          I can honestly say that most peoples values today are not in the right place, and I wasn't around during Alexander's time but I can only infer that most of theirs weren't either. Although Alexander was a cruel leader, they put up with it because they saw what his leadership had to offer. I don't agree with Alexander's ruling techniques, but he did bring many cultures together and stayed very wealthy and powerful through his years. People's views of the greatness or non-greatness in Alexander shows what their true values were.            

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

          Yes, time and distance have an impact on people’s perception of Alexander because people that weren’t affected by his decisions might think he’s great while the people who suffered through his selfish decisions realized that he was not great. The people that lived under his control were hurt and angered by his unjust decisions that put them and their loved ones in danger, but the people who were not under his control had just heard how invincible his army was and the expansion he was making of his empire.

          Over time, I’m sure the stories of Alexander have been exaggerated to make him sound greater than he actually was. Also, if people were born in a time after Alexander, they would never actually experience what his ruling was like and would just have to trust what they hear. People that lived with and through Alexander’s time were definitely affected by him whether it was negative or positive, and their perception of him and his greatness will differ from those who didn’t live in the same place or time.  

1.     Salowey, Christina A. "Alexander the Great." Great Lives from History: The Ancient World: Prehistory - 476 C.E. Vol. 1. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem, 2004. 39-42. Print.

2.     Worthington, Ian, Professor. How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. The Ancient History Bulletin, 1999. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

3.     Brophy, James M. "Chapter 4 - The Greek World Expands - Plutarch." Perspectives from the Past: Primary Sources in Western Civilizations. Fifth ed. Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998. 142-45. Print.

4.     Moulton, Carroll. "History of Greece." Ancient Greece and Rome: An Encyclopedia for Students. Vol. 2. New York: Scribner, 1998. 122-25. Print.

5.     Beck, Roger B., Linda Black, Larry S. Krieger, Phillip C. Naylor, and Dahia Ibo Shabaka. World History: Patterns of Interaction. United States: Holt McDougal, 2012. Print.

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

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

        Alexander does deserve to be called great, but it all depends on what someone’s definition of great is. He was great in a sense off his occupation as a general, but not necessarily his character or his morals.  Although he was a bad person, and he ran away from some of his problems, he still was very successful and accomplished a lot in his short life of thirty-three years.  He knew how to command troops at the age of sixteen, he was a great leader, he conquered many empires, and he never lost even one battle.

        Alexander was one of the most successful generals in the world.  He fought in many battles, none in which he ever lost, and he conquered some of the most powerful empires in the world at that time.  Some of those empires included Persia, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, and India.  By the age of 16, Alexander was already able to command troops, so when he took over his fathers spot after Phillip’s death, he was already ready to lead the military.  Immediately after his inauguration, he set off to do what his father was working on, conquering all of these different city states. His first priority was conquering Persia, helping to make Macedon the most powerful empire in the world at that time.  After conquering all of these regions, Alexander had basically started his own culture in which was called “Hellenistic”.  He had spread his Greek culture around the world, but also mixed that culture in with all of the other empires lifestyles.  Alexander was becoming more of a sultan too. He began to change his appearance, preferring a mixture of Persian and Macedonian clothing, despite the obvious displeasure of his troops, and he had also assumed the upright tiara, the symbol of Persian kingship not only did he spread the culture, but also the democratic government too.  He wanted this new period so bad that he married a Persian woman to show the mixing of the empires, causing some men to revolt.  Although Alexander did all of these great things, he was still not a good person with a bad character.

        “He was a brutal conqueror without constructive plans for the future of his empire” (Pomeroy).  If your definition of great is the type of person someone was, Alexander was very far from great.  After his father’s assassination, rumors were going around through the city-states that Alexander paid his fathers assassin to kill him, so that Alexander could easily rise to power.  This shows how power hungry Alexander really was, because he wanted to be king and have power so bad that he could’ve possibly killed his father.  Many wise men that had been working for his father requested that Alexander may start his kingship slow, after his father’s death, he quickly took Phillip’s spot without hesitation, disregarding any hesitations.  He went straight to war, finishing his fathers starting’s.  A lot of the time, Alexander wasn’t doing what was right for his country. An example was when he attacked the Triballi tribe for just humiliating his father, and then brutally attacked an island where Triballi had stuck their women and children for safety.  Alexander had been gone from Macedon and the other Greek city-states so long that many had thought he was dead.  People in the city-states started a revolt after hearing this untrue news.  He returned and showed them he was alive and killed anyone who defied him and that news.  

        One of the definitions of great is of high rank; official position; or social standing.  Another definition of this multiple meaning word is important; highly significant or consequential.  There is no real definition of great, but because I used these definitions to define this confusing word, Alexander does deserve to be called great.

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

        Someone can learn about the value of society based on their own views of greatness, because if someones definition of great for a figure was the type of person that the he may be, then they may realize that society needs a leader with good morals and character.  In that case, Alexander would not be a good leader, for he was a terrible person.  Not very many people realized how bad of a person Alexander "the Great" was, and many can argue that the Macedon empire would have been a better empire, because it would've been more governed.  Alexander was great in war and he built his own culture or period, but he didn't do very much for his empire.  He disappeared north for very many years and citizens living in the city states didn't know whether or not he had survived  Altogether, Alexander could've showed the world what to look for in an empire, because arguably war is not all of what every country or empire is about.

3) Do time and distance impact someone popular perception?
        Yes, time and distance do impact someones popular perception.  Until recently, historians and people believed that Alexander the Great was an amazing leader and ruler, because thats what people living in that time had written down, and those were the facts that we had known.  Many only knew him as this amazing general who conquered many empires and never won a battle, but now many are starting to question how great he was. Back in the time of Alexander, communication wasn't even near its best, and clearly Alexander wasn't very good at the communication skill.  The further the troops would travel, the harder it would be to communicate.  The time that Alexander had been away plus the distance he had traveled could have given his citizen a bad perception of him.  They could feel like he wasn't protecting him, or like he didn't really care about that particular cry state, causing many riots.  It took a while for Alexander to hear about these riots, because of the communication.  He returned to his empires and threatened all of them.
       The fact that its been many years since all of these occurrences, could cause people to change their minds about Alexander the so called "great".  The distance and time that Alexander was gone back then was so significant that people would kill each other over it, and that shows what kind of ruler Alexander was.
Bibliography:

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

o   Pomeroy, Sarah B. Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.

o   Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2014.

o   Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Ancient History Bulletin, 1999. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

o   MacKendrick, Paul Lachlan. Greece and Rome: Builders of Our World. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1968. Print.

o   "Great." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.