1. Does Alexander the Great deserve his name and why or why not?
2. Has the world of public opinion always agreed with you?
Over the course of history, questions have arose if Alexander the Great really deserves his title as "Great". Many examples support both theories that Alexander is great and is not. Alexander is not the substantial leader that many think he is, for many reasons. First, his life style is full of alcoholism and he was power hungry for control over numerous countries. However, Alexander was capable of reuniting Greece and conquering Persia and Egypt with his superior armies and tactics. But, after he accomplished these feats, he left the conquered, destroyed territories to reconstruct themselves and create a stable system for the people to live in. Also, some believe the credit should be given to Alexander's father, King Philip II, for creating the great Macedonian civilization and forming the armies and culture of Macedonia. King Philip was on the rise of power, until he was murdered by one of his own guards. When King Philip II was killed, his power was given to his young son, Alexander the Great. It can be seen that Alexander had no involvement in the creation of the Macedonian civilization, but instead just inherited it from his father. Although, Alexander's leadership cannot be overlooked. As stated previously, Alexander conquered many countries and in none of the battles had he lost. Again, there are examples supporting both theories about Alexander's greatness. But throughout history Alexander has been more dishonorable and cruel than great. Although his leadership skills were superior, they were put to bad use when he left territories to reconstruct themselves as he moved on. Even if Alexander the Great was a eminent leader, there are more characteristics about him that would lead people to believe he is not great.
Alexander the Great
https://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com
People from different time periods definitely saw things differently and experienced things differently. A person in World War II will have had many different experiences than someone from today. The same had to be during Alexander the Greats life time. Someones opinion on if Alexander deserves the title "Great" could be different if they lived in the time of Alexander than if they live today. Alexander showed great leadership over his armies in conquering many countries. A soldier in Alexander's army would have seen him as a great person and a great leader, but a victim of Alexander's raids woulds have seen him as a monster who did not know when to stop. But, today, people have no first hand knowledge of Alexander the Great. All people rely on basing their opinion on is what they have heard or researched about Alexander the Great. In the world of public opinion, people think Alexander the Great was great because they do not know much about him and mainly base their opinion on the fact that their is "Great" in Alexander's name. While the world of public opinion of people who have researched Alexander the Great will vary. These people will find examples of why Alexander is great and is not great and have to form their opinions around that.
Work Cited
Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval
Eras, ABC-CLIO, 2016, ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/575648.
Accessed 30 Sept. 2016.
Bialo, Ellen. "Career of Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval
Eras, ABC-CLIO, 2016, ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1185181. Accessed 30 Sept. 2016.
"The Beginning of Alexander's Empire." Great Empires of the Past Online. Infobase
1. I found the wording and examples to be very helpful in his claim, such as the statement "Even if he was an eminent leader". I liked the position of statements, and the relationships Ty drew from them.
ReplyDelete2. My research did not show much difference, especially in the area of alcoholism. In the topic of letting conquered areas rebuild themselves, I did see some difference in how I researched that.
3. I wish he would've mentioned more of a cultural aspect into the post. Noting that he was only famous for "military" and bring together other countries, could also be supported by some other evidence. It may have been a problem because it supports a rebuttal, not his claim.
1. I liked how he, like Major said, used the wording in a great way and made it interesting to read. It's not boring to read and it's very informal.
ReplyDelete2. My research did not show much difference except for he didn't really say how Alexander conquered lots of land. Other than that our research wasn't too different.
3. Like I said before, I wish he would've put more information on how Alexander conquered so much land. It was a good blog overall and I enjoyed it.
1. I like that you said that he was not great and was able to back it up with actual evidence, not just philosophical reasoning.
ReplyDelete2. My research was similar but with some other facts such as unprecedented military strengths and battle strategies such as the phalanx, which cannot be overlooked.
3. I wish that you could have included more information about why he was great also, because you do not give him enough credit for being the one of the most influential characters of the ancient world.
1. I liked the information you used to support your claim, this information helped me when reading your post to understand your perspective
ReplyDelete2. My research showed much of the same things except for how he conquered lots of land like Jackson pointed out.
3.I wish you would’ve added something about Alexander as a king, you seemed to focus on his his ruthless procedure in battle more than anything else
I like how you talk about both sides of the argument and talk about his flaws. This was really well written and your information was pretty good too. I would have liked to see something about diplomacy and the politics aspect other than military and conquering of land.
ReplyDelete