Varun Nadella
10/1/14
G Block
1) Does Alexander deserve to be called great?
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.
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"?
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.
I feel like in your first and third questions you need to organize it a bit more because right now it is really confusing to look at it. Also i feel like you had way to many facts and your were just telling us about Alexanders life in the first question.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your examples you used in your answer to number 2, I think you really proved your point in number 1 with all of your research. But the organization was a little confusing at some points.
ReplyDeleteThere was a lack of information about the Battle of Granicus, so I was left wondering, what happened?
ReplyDeletei wasn't trying to explain that much about the Battle, i was just showing that he defeated the Persians which were the most powerful empire then before Alexander. But at the battle, Alexander attacked first with his cavalry and won.
DeleteI think you should have focused on some of the bad things that Alexander did. It seemed very one-sided and didn't really talk about his morals. But your example about the Dalai Lama was very well explained so good job there
ReplyDelete