I truly believe that Alexander doesn't deserve his epithet of being “Great”. Of course he was an amazing military leader, his empire was massive, and he died at the peak of his power. He became a ruler at such a young age and his empire encompassed all of Persia, Greece, Egypt, and beyond but there were many aspects of Alexander that were far from great. He was obsessed with conquering new territory and he never stopped to organize and plan for the future. Also his prime directive that he inherited from his father was to punish the Persians for their sacrilegious acts 150 years ago but when he conquered Persia he disregarded this prime directive for his own personal reasons. Alexander made decisions not for the greater good of his people and soldiers but for himself.
He also sacrificed many unnecessary lives, when he defeated the main forces of Triballi he then launched an assault on an island where the Triballi had placed there women and children for safety (Pomeroy). He slaughtered innocent natives even though he had already won the battle. Alexander also caused many unnecessary deaths with his soldiers, he made soldiers march for seventy days through monsoon rains into unknown territory to conquer new land. When he decided to return to Macedon after a mutiny at the Hyphasis river he took a new route along the coasts of the Persian Gulf where the soldiers were faced with starvation, extreme heat, little water, and flash floods. Some people say this was to punish his soldiers who had “failed” him during the mutiny. Plutarch said the army was reduced to nearly a quarter of its original size after the journey.
Also Alexander neglected his own country or kingdom. He left Macedon just after two years to conquer new territory and showed no signs of coming back, his country never even knew their king. Alexander also had drunken rages that resulted in killing friends and family, paranoia, and orientalism, there was even a rumor that he had complicity in the plot that murdered his father. Also after Alexander's death his vast empire collapsed extremely rapidly which shows just how unstable his empire was. All of these habits and personality traits don't really add up to the epithet “Great”. Yes of course he did spread Greek culture and form Hellinistic culture but you have to look at Alexander as a whole and really decide if everything he did and everything he accomplished was truly great.
2) What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?
Everyone has their own definition and everyone has different things and people that they see as "great". We can see Macedonia's moral values and their values of daily life based on their views of greatness. For example Macedon really valued their army and viewed their army as being great because it was a significant part of their society and their army was unstoppable. Alexander thought his army was "great" because they were ruthless and they conquered any land that they sought out. Other's could view a "great" army as an army that is there only for protection and one that spares innocent people's lives. Alexander truly valued power and he thought that if he had power that it would make him a great king but other societies valued compassion and fairness and thats what they thought would make a great king, so when we see a societies or a persons views of greatness we can also learn about what that society or person values.
3) Does time and distance impact someones popular perception?
Yes I think that time and distance can change peoples perspective on a person. We think that Alexander is “Great” but back in his time his people may not have thought so. We see Alexander as this amazing young leader that conquered lots of land with an unstoppable military but the people living in that time could have seen Alexander as a ruthless and brutal king that murdered thousands of innocent people just for power and land. It’s like how we see Abraham Lincoln, now we see him as this brave president that fought for peoples rights even when people were against it but back in the 1800’s people in the south saw what Lincoln was doing as unfair and uncivil. My point is that we perceive people differently as time goes on. We tend to assume either they are all good or all bad we don’t necessarily look at a person as having both good and bad qualities as time passes. Also when we look at someone from the past in a way we have a skewed image of them, we only know who that person was from what the people from that time wrote down and as time goes on what they wrote gets rewritten and changed so we see the person differently from what they could have been like in the past.
Everyone has their own definition and everyone has different things and people that they see as "great". We can see Macedonia's moral values and their values of daily life based on their views of greatness. For example Macedon really valued their army and viewed their army as being great because it was a significant part of their society and their army was unstoppable. Alexander thought his army was "great" because they were ruthless and they conquered any land that they sought out. Other's could view a "great" army as an army that is there only for protection and one that spares innocent people's lives. Alexander truly valued power and he thought that if he had power that it would make him a great king but other societies valued compassion and fairness and thats what they thought would make a great king, so when we see a societies or a persons views of greatness we can also learn about what that society or person values.
3) Does time and distance impact someones popular perception?
Yes I think that time and distance can change peoples perspective on a person. We think that Alexander is “Great” but back in his time his people may not have thought so. We see Alexander as this amazing young leader that conquered lots of land with an unstoppable military but the people living in that time could have seen Alexander as a ruthless and brutal king that murdered thousands of innocent people just for power and land. It’s like how we see Abraham Lincoln, now we see him as this brave president that fought for peoples rights even when people were against it but back in the 1800’s people in the south saw what Lincoln was doing as unfair and uncivil. My point is that we perceive people differently as time goes on. We tend to assume either they are all good or all bad we don’t necessarily look at a person as having both good and bad qualities as time passes. Also when we look at someone from the past in a way we have a skewed image of them, we only know who that person was from what the people from that time wrote down and as time goes on what they wrote gets rewritten and changed so we see the person differently from what they could have been like in the past.
Work Cited
"How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.
Martell, Paul, and Grace P. Hayes. World Military Leaders. New York: Bowker, 1974. Print.
Pomeroy, Sarah B. Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
Stobart, J. C., and R. J. Hopper. The Glory That Was Greece: A Survey of Hellenic Culture and Civilization. New York: Hawthorn, 1964. Print.
"Alexander's Legacy (Overview)." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2014.
"Alexander the Great." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. 6th ed. N.d.Alabama Virtual Library. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.
Your information was interesting, i had no idea about his attack on triballis women and children, also I didn't think to compare him to lincoln, it really puts things in perspective.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you used the general information about the things that Alexander did in his life and twisted the wording to further prove your point.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how he doesn't deserve his epithet, and I didn't know that he sacrificed innocent natives, but that shows how he was not great.
ReplyDeleteI think your research within the text was very helpful, and I really liked and agreed with the way you answered the questions, especially number 2.
ReplyDeleteI like how you talked more about the journey across Asia and what Alexander did to make himself not great. I also liked how you talked about how Alexander thought about his army.
ReplyDeleteGreat job on answering each question, I especially agree with your response to #3.
ReplyDeletei like how you explained the last question. you explained how our perception on a person can change.
ReplyDeleteI think that the comparison to Abraham Lincoln to prove your point about it depends on what side you're on, was clever and clarifying
ReplyDeleteThis was a very good, well-researched essay and I especially thought it was strong in the 1st paragraph when you were describing specific instances to prove your point of why you do not think he was great.
ReplyDeleteVery strong argument! I really liked how specific you got with the answers where you mentioned specific times when Alexander was not so great. And I also love the link back to Abraham Lincoln in the third answer
ReplyDelete