Does Alexander the Great deserve his title and what does history have to say about this? Well I believe Alexander does not deserve his name and that history would most likely disagree with me. Most historians such as Plutarch, Diodorus, and Arrian believe Alexander was the greatest leader in the world and considered him to be a demigod. Diodorus says himself, "These achievements were not the work of Fortune but of his own force of character, for this king stands out above all others for his military acumen, personal courage and intellectual brilliance.".
While many people may see Alexander as a military and diplomatic genius, Alexander never truly made any flourishing cities except Alexandria in Egypt which only became prosperous after his death. While I admit he did create the Hellenistic culture which is a great, but he did more for his country dead than alive. The people who did make the kingdom prosperous were his generals that took over for him after his death. I am not the only one who believes this either, many historians today agree that he never did anything great for his country and instead just went on a rampage through the continent.
Many ancient philosophers and civilizations see Alexander as the greatest military leader of all time. However, they never acknowledge how poor of a ruler
he was for his kingdom, also Alexander never came up with any powerful strategies or armies it was all his father who set him up with the perfect base for Alexander to take the credit. Not only that but his mother Olympias also had a major influence on Alexander's decisions, his mother was basically the ruler despite Alexander being king. Basically Alexander was never a true king and doesn't deserve to be called great.
Throughout history thoughts about Alexander have wavered, ancient historians see him as an amazing ruler where as more modern day historians and professors are a bit more skeptical of his achievements and capabilities as a ruler. Now there are still some people who believe that Alexander was a good ruler but the numbers are less than they used to be. The historian Plutarch wrote himself,"Crying that this day had brought forth something that would prove fatal and destructive to all Asia." This quote talks about how when the temple of Diana was burnt down people suspected a being to be born that would destroy all of that land, by this they mean Alexander the Great.
In conclusion Alexander does not deserve his name for he was never a true leader and was pushed around by his mother and his father did everything for him. While ancient history disagrees more modern historians believe him to be nothing more than an uncivilized barbarian. While Alexander did create a good culture and conquer a lot of land, he was not a very good ruler and never made any great cities or kingdoms; it was after death is when he actually did some good.
Throughout history thoughts about Alexander have wavered, ancient historians see him as an amazing ruler where as more modern day historians and professors are a bit more skeptical of his achievements and capabilities as a ruler. Now there are still some people who believe that Alexander was a good ruler but the numbers are less than they used to be. The historian Plutarch wrote himself,"Crying that this day had brought forth something that would prove fatal and destructive to all Asia." This quote talks about how when the temple of Diana was burnt down people suspected a being to be born that would destroy all of that land, by this they mean Alexander the Great.
In conclusion Alexander does not deserve his name for he was never a true leader and was pushed around by his mother and his father did everything for him. While ancient history disagrees more modern historians believe him to be nothing more than an uncivilized barbarian. While Alexander did create a good culture and conquer a lot of land, he was not a very good ruler and never made any great cities or kingdoms; it was after death is when he actually did some good.
Works Cited
"Arrian: Alexander the Great Founds Alexandria, Egypt." World History: Ancient and Medieval
Eras,
2016.
Flower, Michael A. "Not so Great Man." Jstor. John Hopkins Press, 2007. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.
@ahencyclopedia. "Alexander the Great." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Worthington, Ian. "How 'Great' Was Alexander?" Iran Chamber Society. N.p., 1999. Web. 23 Sept. 2016. <http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/how_great_was_alexander2.php>.
ReplyDelete1.I found it really interesting that you attribute achievements of Alexander to his parents.
2.The information that I researched showed that even though his father came up with some of the strategies used, Alexander still came up with ,many of his own tactics.
3.I wish I saw more information on the military aspect.
1. I like that you were not mainstream and came up with many good reasons why Alexander was not great from a modern social perspective.
ReplyDelete2. The sources I used were mostly positive, but the ones that had negatives also contained the same information as yours. So no my research did not show anything different.
3. I wish you could have mentioned more concrete information and facts in your first body paragraph.
1. I found it interesting that most of what you said about alexander is that he took the credit from them and had them make the decisions.
ReplyDelete2. The research I documented was quite different, in the sense that you said "Alexander never came up with any powerful strategies or armies it was all his father who set him up with the perfect base for Alexander to take the credit." Whereas I found that he did come up with many militaristic tactics and achievements.
3.I think this post would be better if it included more of his education or counterpoints, to what he did do and how it could have been better/worse.
1) I find it interesting how you found three ancient historians and shared their opinions on Alexander the Great throughout the reading. I like how you take a strong stance that Alexander does not deserve the title “Great”, but you still give counter points on why he was great in some aspects.
ReplyDelete2) I somewhat agree with you that King Philip II left Alexander with the Macedonian empire and Alexander did not do much, but I found that Alexander had a big influence on his military and their tactics, not that KIng Philip had done it all.
3) I feel you could have talked about Alexander’s personal life a bit more, such as his alcohol use and how he was tutored by many philosophers. And you could say how that ties into him been a bad leader. Right now you only really talked about his ruling of the Macedonian Empire.
1. I found it interesting that you mentioned Alexander taking most of the credit from things his parents had accomplished.
ReplyDelete2. Like Ty pointed out, I feel like Alexander had more to do with the military than his father did.
3. I wish you had put more things about the military. Yes it is important to mention Alexander as a king of Macedonia, but that seemed like your main focus.
I found that the fact you thought he was a bad ruler was interesting. You took the road less traveled. You never included any counter arguments though.
ReplyDeleteMy research showed me a lot of things you didn't say because we focused on two very different beliefs.
I wish you incorporated move opposing views in your paper to let the reader pick a side.