1) Does Alexander deserve to be called “Great”?
That is a very complicated question and honestly depends
on the individual and their personal opinions. However by modern standards I
don't think he deserves to be called great. While he did many things that were
great, such as conquering Persia (said by almost all my sources) by the
standards of greatness today, I believe he would be considered a bloodthirsty psychopath
he killed many of his own men by poor military decisions and killed many of the
indigenous people of the lands he conquered. (How “Great” was Alexander? Source used in class) He
also took the mixing of cultures a little overboard when he started acting like
a Sultan of Persia (How “Great” was Alexander?Source used in class) Things like that are looked
down upon today.
2) What can one learn about the values of society based
on their views of greatness?
You can learn if society is more concerned with the well-being of the people or with the wealth and power of the society as a whole
because if they tend to see helping people and having good morals as great then
they're generally more concerned for the well-being of individual people. Which
is not a very big picture way of thinking but is (by most standards) morally
right. If the society tends to see winning competitions (be it in sports war
etc.) against another society then they're more concerned with the wealth and
power of the society as a whole. Which is a much more big picture way of
thinking but focuses less on the individual people and their needs.
3) Do time and distance impact someone’s popular
perception?
Yes.
I think time plays the biggest impact because our perception is influenced
greatly by our age, level of experience, and the time period we were born in.
Distance also plays a huge role because people tend to be more concerned with
issues that are closer to home. Issues that could directly impact them or hurt
them in some way.
You must conduct quality research and use what you learn
to formulate your own opinions and ideas about these questions, and write the
posts using your own voice.
Works Cited
Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander?
[P.1]." How "Great" Was
Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., 1999. Web. 30 Sept. 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.
Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander
the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014.
Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
"Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age."
Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2014.
<http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgiotto/onlinetextbook.cfm?subpage=1653418>.
I really liked and agreed with the way you described Alexander. I got a little confused on the order of things and in the citations between. Is the last sentence on number 3 supposed to be there?
ReplyDeleteI think that you could have elaborated more on examples and you could have added more details to why Alexander wasn't great like I found that Alexander could have been involved in his dads murder like things like that but you did bring up really good points
ReplyDeleteI think your points made about Alexander's morals are very well said and the points about how society doesn't care about the moral value of it but how much wealth they have, which could also apply to the Agis III revolt as well. Good job overall
ReplyDeleteI really like how you mentioned in the beginning that the definition of great entirely is dependent on the person. I like how you were also very opinionated about the topic too. Maybe you could've explained why you think those things though. I liked your second answer too, because it sounded like you really understood the question and that is good.Good answer to last question.
ReplyDeleteI really thought you answer to number 1 explained Alexander very well. You used very good word choice in your answers. I especially like in the first answer when you used the words blood-thirsty and psychopath these words really stood out to me.
ReplyDelete@crosby No it wasn't I copied and pasted it straight out of a word document and that decided to come with it and I'm too lazy to edit it out.
ReplyDeleteYou said that he was not "great" on modern standards but what about standards back then?
ReplyDelete@Waggoner that was kind of my point. He was great by the standards back then but not by the standards now.
ReplyDeleteI felt the essay was very well written and thought that you used good facts to back up your opinions. I thought the 1st and 2nd paragraphs were especially strong.
ReplyDeleteWell written! Your strong opinion makes your point much stronger.
ReplyDelete