Work cited part 1

Rufus, Quintus C. "Quintus Curtius Rufus: Life of Alexander the Great." LacusCurtius. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.

Staff, LiveScience. "Top 10 Reasons Alexander the Great Was, Well ... Great!" LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 10 Dec. 2004. Web. 08 Oct. 2014.

Livius. "Alexander in the Hindu Kush." Alexander the Great Crosses the Hindu Kush. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.

Knox, E.L. S. "Alexander the Great." Alexander the Great. Boise State University, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.

"Pothos.org." - Introduction to Alexander the Great. Pothos.org, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.

Alexander the Great or Nah

  Alexander the great was a terrible and belligerent human being.Alexander doesn't deserve to be great,he was a villain he terrorized thousands of people just to be known for his achievement. He was a monster fueled by self desire. He cared for no one but himself, he thought he was better than everyone.Alexander thought he was so amazing that he thought of himself as a divine son of zeus. Alexander only cared about his pothos,he wanted to conquer 'ends of the world to the Great Outer Sea'. Alexander didn't earn anything it was already made for him. His father,King Phillip, came up with the ideas to conquer to Persia. King Phillip also came up with the peasant inspiration project as well as the idea of the phalanx.King Phillip also pioneered the long spears. Alexanders army was handed to him on a silver platter. Alexander didn't have to do anything, he was given a life that without any difficulty.Alexander was a monster he killed thousands upon hundred thousands of men. He was a killer of innocent men, women, and children. He destroyed villages and cities because he felt like it or they didn't follow his insane idea's. He instilled fear into every colony or village he passed.He brought death to everyone who opposed him some villages even called him Alexander the devil.Alexander only cared what time would think about him. The goods that Alexander did he did for publicity.He liberated villages to look like a hero.Alexander thought of himself as a hero but hero's don't kidnap their enemies mother, wife, and children.Alexander had only one purpose in life to cause chaos he burnt down cities for no reason. Alexander was also a terrible king he didn't do any thing for his people. Antipater had to a worry some country .Antipater had to deal with rebellions and a crazy king. Antipater was a puppet to Alexander so Alexander would keep power but not do anything. He gave his people reinsurance.while he was of leading his troops to starvation and death.
    We can learn a lot about a society though their views on greatness.The Macedonians thought of Alexander as a god. We can tell that this society thinks that taking peoples lives and land deserves a greatness. Their views of greatness are being number one.If you arent the best then you have know value.Alexander was the best at what he did winning in battle.In their society the viewed him as a great accomplishments but in reality he was terrible and awful and full of self desire. In our society we view everyone as great we give medals to last placers and congratulate them. Their society had to make champions so that they will survive at war. Nowadays  there is little pressure to be the best when there are rewards for being mediocre. The Macedon's used this pressure to conquer that part of the world. Their society viewed greatness as being the best and that pressure pushed them to be the best.
    Time and distance do affect peoples perspective. Time tells us how long it takes to be great. time is an essential measurement.Time is telling us how long that person has accomplished there goal.Without time we wouldn't know how long a person been trying to achieve their goal. If it took 15 years to conquer the Persians people wouldn't view him as a great person .Distance is the measure of how much that person has done. This idea of time and distance changing peoples perspective reminds me of the new pop sensation Ariana Grande she has been in the singing world for has achieved super stardom in a mere 2 year of recording. She accomplished 1 already dropped album and 1 more on the way . She has accomplished triple platinum on her first single. She also was the second female person to have 3 billboard hits simultaneously.

Alexander the "Great"

1) Does Alexander deserve to be called "great"?
                 After many days of research and finding facts about Alexander, I agree that he should be know as a person who is "great". For example, Alexander was known to begin with success right off the top, and made his pretty good military into an unbelievable one who never lost a fight, which was a very difficult thing to accomplish. Alexander might have had some bad traits and actions as a king, like leaving Macedon for some time to conquer land or being to greedy with himself, but after all of his accomplishments and success, he was a man who did deserve this name. Alexander was a man of heart and compassion for going through and accomplishing his plans, which is a great way to prove greatness throughout his life. Also, he developed and established Macedon into a great empire until he perished, which was at a young age. So for the time he was king until he died, which was not that long, it was amazing what all he accomplished as king.

                  Alexander started his rulership at the age of 20. He was taught by"a series of Greek tutors which included Aristotle and provided him with the education in Greek literature and culture that Phillip (Alexander's father) had lacked." (Pomerboy, 395) Having a good education was key in Alexander's time, because not many people could be tutored or schooled by great people like this, so he had an advantage in knowledge and many other things to show his greatness towards his kingdom. While Alexander's father was away from Macedon, Alexander governed Macedon and put down a Thracian Rebellion before he even became king, and for his age and little experience he had in this type of situation, it was an amazing thing he did. Not only was Alexander the king, but he was also a great military leader, and on his own he became a far greater warrior than his father. When Alexander was growing up his father schooled him in the art of war, and by the age of 16 he commanded the troops into battles.When Alexander began ruling he gathered his army together, made up of about 30,000 well-armed and well-trained troops, and marched toward Asia Minor to put into play his father's scheme to control this part of the world. Alexander than accomplished everything his father wanted him to do, and even extended farther in reaching goals that his father never even thought of, like conquering Egypt and Syria.
                  Also, Alexander's movements were known to be marked by speed, logic, and his flawless communication. Historian George Bruce writes "Alexander crossed the Granicus in the face of the Persian Army, leading the way himself at the head of the cavalry, and dispersed the Persian light horse", Also "The Persians lost heavily, while the Macedonians' loss was very slight." (Grossman, 12) This is a good example of showing how Alexander was great, because the Persian military had many more troops than Alexander had, but since Alexander was better with strategy and planning on what to do in his attacks, the Macedonians won with ease while the Persians suffered a terrible loss. Alexander was a careful, well planned out, and intelligent man when it came to his strategy and improvising. For example, "rather than to to strike deep into Asia immediately, he spent nearly two years securing the coastal Asia Minor and the Levant in order to ensure that Persian naval forces would not indirect his lines to Europe." Lastly he strengthened the military by the addition of allied troops, strengthened the cavalry arm, and also employed a corpse of engineers. These are the reasons why I think Alexander deserves the name "great".

2) What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

                  To me there are many different opinions of what people think of greatness. It depends on the society and the people in it, because some people could value someone as great, but others might not think of that person the same way. Alexander the Great is a good example of this, because back when Alexander was king, most people saw him as a great leader and person to follow up to, but there were a few of these people who didn't like him to much as a leader and thought that he was not a good example to follow. Depending on what a person thinks, his/her life could be bad or good depending on what they value or the way there life is in their society. For example, if a person was a slave they might of thought there life in the society was not to great, but someone of higher class or people who had a normal life might of had more opportunities to see greatness in there society which would've made them much happier. Another example of Alexander, was citizens who stayed in Macedon supported him, but the people in his military ended up not seeing as much greatness in him, because he would never listen or give them a break, and he was greedy and treated himself like no one could tell him what to do except himself. So depending on who the person is in a society; based on there experiences or knowledge on something, the person would have a different opinion on there views of greatness and what they seek to determine something or someone as great. Lastly, many countries have learned from Alexander by following his tactics and skills in life, so this an example of how the world and many society's have valued his greatness.

3) Do time and distance impact someones popular perception?

                  I think time and distance do impact someones popular perception immensely, because people's opinions have changed greatly about things that have happened in the past. My example that I am using to prove this is Adolf Hitler. Back when Adolf Hitler was alive he persuaded the people of Germany that doing exactly what he said and did was the right thing to do. Even though what he was doing to the jews was horrible, people still listened to him, because he was seen as a leader and great and a great person to most of those people. Now in todays world, what Hitler did is seen as some of the cruelest and most terrible events that has happened in history, and would never occur or be followed like it was in the past by the Germans. This proves that just because someone was valued in the past, doesn't mean he would be treated the same today, because if what Hitler did ever had an attempt to occur again, no one would agree with his plans, and he would most likely be hated by most people. Time and distance do impact someone's personal perception, because depending on what the person did or who he was, people might think or treat this person in a much different way than in the past.

Works Cited

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 3 Oct. 2014."

Alexander the Great." History.com. A&E Television Networks. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

Burstein, Stanley M., Walter Donlan, and Jenifer Tolbert Roberts. "ALEXANDER THE GREAT." Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History. By Sarah B. Pomeroy. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 395-99. Print.

Grossman, Mark. "Alexander the Great." World Military Leaders: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Facts On File, 2007. 11-13. Print.

Nardo, Don. "Alexander and His Successors." The Ancient Greeks. San Diego, CA: Lucent, 2001. 84-85. Print.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. The Ancient History Bulletin. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

Was Alexander "Great"? (Emma)

1)

Technically speaking Alexander was “great”, but in retrospect he was a terrible man who lead many people to their death and caused much suffering.  There is equal evidence to point that Alexander was a very “great” man who could have run an empire, but he was too distracted by the riches and what could be his.  We’re talking about a man who followed in his father’s footsteps of defeating an empire considered to be one of the strongest in existence, but does that really make him worthy of the title “great”?  For a man to take power at only 20 years old is impressive, but he wasn’t mature enough to lead Macedonia.  There have been more than 1,472 books and articles written about him, he is a legend among leaders, but not all legends are good.  He was not a great man, he destroyed cities, lives, homes, empires, families, and much more. There was almost no end to what he could get rid of, his soldiers suffered greatly for him, “red-hot sand heated in huge cauldrons--which blinded and burned the Macedonians...fish nets and grappling hooks and deftly snatched up screaming Macedonians whom they tortured… (Mercer, 81-82)”  The people he brought out of poverty to live better lives were dying at his hands in very horrible ways, that would leave their family to fend for themselves.  The mutinies “in 326 at the Hyphasis (Beas) river and in 324 at Opis (link)” are enough to prove his army was not happy with what he did and how they were treated.  His father was the start of bringing the citizens in poverty into the army, his father wasn’t any better than Alexander was.  “If, as seems possible, the king was planning his own assimilation to the Olympic pantheon, this fact would have been widely known (Green, 81-82)”, his father was just as conceded, they both wanted glory and wealth, this greed lead to their empire’s demise.  Alexander also thought of himself as the son of a god, either Ammon or Zeus, while he was in Egypt as a pharaoh he wished to see an oracle.  Although he was involved with many other cultures he still wanted to see “the most trustworthy greek oracle (Green, 273)” within reach of the Nile Valley.  As a leader, Alexander should not have viewed himself as a child of a god, because that would cause his mind to be affected by the power that he thinks he holds and would lead his empire astray. Although he was never truly called a god, it may have made him stronger, he charged into battles more eargerly and was ready to fight at anytime.  "He has no failures...he's the invincible, the unconquered one. (link)", although he never lost, there was a lack of leadership that lead to mutinies and arguments.  He was not a great man, the things his empire accomplished were great, but under his leadership, it should have lasted longer then he made it.

Philip

2)

Most of people's views of greatness is something material, a large creation, or an accomplishment.  Society today is heavily focused on wealth, necessities, material goods, food, and trying to be better than any other person. Our generation has been raised to think that money is what allows for us to live, and in a way that’s true.  We have to play for food, housing, water, and other necessities, but we also spend money on cars, toys, technology, savings, and other luxuries that we seem to think are needed for our happiness.  We value as a society things that are unavailable to us, we feel the need to do better when what we already have is fine, we want something “great” when all we have is “okay”.  If aliens came to earth and the only word they understood was "great" they would see malls, cars, shows, clothing, houses, huge buildings, celebrities, and some natural wonders, but the majority would be fabricated things made by humans. We are a very conceited generation, we think that we are the greatest, and we think that only one person can be great. The entire world is full of great people, but we don't notice it because we are too busy thinking of what we can do to be great. We can never achive "greatness" if all we do is sit around and ignore the great people around us who only need a little push in the right direction and they could be amazing. "No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself, or to get all of the credit for doing it." -Andrew Carnegie The media has effected what we see as great, we think of villians as okay, when not long ago, they were hated. We can have tv shows focusing on creatures or people who commit terrible crimes, and yet while we watch we don't think of it as wrong. We applaude and call them "great" because we want to be entertained, and the only way to do that is to show us something we can't do. We can't murder people and get away with it, but on a tv show it's easy, so we watch, and we understand, but we're routing for them. In the tv show, Hannibal, we all know he's a cannibal, he's killed people, he's framed people, but we don't hate him. He has no good reason to do it, but we cheer him on and call him a "great" man, because he can do what we can't, he can frame, murder, and secret turn people into cannibals, but we don't care. Our generation defines "great" as what we can't do, and there is alot that we can't do, which leaves alot of room for "greatness".

3)

         Time and distance would affect how people saw that person, but it would also affect how that person saw everyone else.  If you were to bring some of the “greatest” leaders into the present, they would look at our world in either disgust or amazement.  If we brought Columbus here, he would think that all of the immigrants living here should not be here.  If we brought Lincoln back from the dead and showed him around, he might be proud there was no slavery still, but t

have 91% of the U.S.A. supporting him might be a little strange since he was not nearly as supported during his presidency.  If we brought Andrew Jackson here now, he would be astonished by how many people hate him for the same reason he was loved, when he was president, the Trail of Tears was accepted.  Also things they thought were normal would be completely weird now, like expecting women to wear fancy dresses and corsets.  Not just time would affect how that person saw the world, or how they were seen, but distance would also be a major factor.  If I moved to China and talked about my views on life there, they would think I was strange and I might be punished for what I thought.  It’s like being a really distant exchange student, everything you knew is reversed and the only thing you can do it get used to it.  If I went to Australia I would get sunburned, lost, probably get hungry, tired because it would not be the same time zone, and confused because accents would be hard to decipher.  Basically changes confuse people if they are not there to experience them, you could be gone a day or years, but in that day the government could fall and when you returned you would be very confused, or in that year the population could gradually de-evolve and when you got back your family would be primates.  Time or distance can change you, or what you left, and either way when you return, something is going to be different.

 
Citations:

Green, Peter, and Peter Green. Alexander of Macedon: 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. Berkeley: U of California, 1991. Print.

Fox, Robin L. "Alexander the Great." Google Books. Penguin, 6 July 2006. Web. 18 Sept. 2014.

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. 22 Sept. 2014.

"The Great Library of Alexandria?" Unlib. Heather Phillips, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.

Beck, Black, Krieger, Naylor, and Shabaka. "Holt McDougal Online." Holt McDougal Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2014.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. Ian Worthington, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014.

Goldstein, Jacob, and Lam Vo. "How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

Silberman, Joel. "Lincoln, JFK: Leaders Now Loved for the Same Reasons They Were Once Hated." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Varin, Andra. "What Made Alexander So Great?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 24 Nov. 2004. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Alexander the Great (Katie)

1) Alexander does not deserve to be called great because although his military was undeniably powerful, he was not a leader that one would want to follow. When looking at great kings in the past, all three aspects of their responsibilities must be considered: their responsibilities as a king, a commander, and a statesman. Alexander does not deserve to be called great regarding any of these three categories because he practically abandoned his kingdom in search of new territory to conquer, his military success was based mainly on luck, and he was focused on his own personal gain instead of the gain of his kingdom.

While Alexander is away from Macedon conquering new territory, he leaves Antipater in charge. Antipater was the one keeping Macedon from falling apart, and Alexander didn’t make it easy on him. Alexander constantly withdrew more soldiers from Macedon, pressing on and on in his conquest for power. This drew away resources for Antipater, so Macedon was not very prepared to control a rebellion. When the Greeks did try to rebel, Alexander had to quickly fix the problem with his money. Although he managed to correct his mistake, that much money wouldn't have always been available to him. His constant depletion of the soldiers left in Macedon could have caused a problem that he wouldn't have been able to fix, which could have resulted in an overthrow of the Macedonian Empire. 

Alexander is mainly known for his military skills, but not many of his achievements were due to his apparent brilliance. One of the things that was so successful about the Macedonian military was the phalanx. This particular military tactic as well as other military tactics used by Alexander was started by Alexander's father, Philip, not Alexander himself (Wepman, 24). Alexander did go on to conquer Persia and beyond, but he made many mistakes and his victories were not based entirely on his apparent brilliance. One major error that Alexander made was not immediately pursuing Darius when he defeated the Persian army. This gave the Persian leader time to regroup and led to another battle between him and Alexander. The Macedonian Empire won again, but there were unnecessary lives lost.

Lastly, Alexander was nowhere near an adequate leader in general. Many people consider Alexander as a king whose goal was to unify the world, but in reality, his entire mission was to serve himself. This is demonstrated by the mutinies at the Hyphasis river and Opis. At the Hyphasis river, Alexander wanted to keep marching, but his army was getting tired. His men did not want to go any farther, and when Coenus backed up the soldiers, Alexander had no choice but to go back. Alexander was not used to being defied, and as a result, Coenus was found dead a few days afterwards. The mutiny at Opis was also caused by Alexander not considering what the people who he is leading wanted. Alexander wanted to include Persians and Iranians in the Macedonian army, but his veteran soldiers considered this to be an insult to their capabilities. Alexander solved this mutiny by threatening to rank the foreign soldiers higher than his current ones. Although he managed to solve most problems and fix his mistakes, everything he is revered for was done for himself, not the people he lead.

2) Based on their views of what is great, one can tell what a society values because their leaders that are considered "great" embody their ideals. This is demonstrated by Alexander the Great and the people of Macedon that held him to such high standards. The reason they thought of Alexander as "great" is because he accomplished the goal they had been working towards for so long, and they were willing to look past all of his faults in order to build their empire.

When Alexander was young, he was tutored by Aristotle. At that time, Aristotle thought that Alexander was brilliant and thoroughly enjoyed tutoring him (Downey, 54+). Even later, when Alexander became king, Aristotle still fully supported him. However, later Aristotle spoke out against his former student. This makes one wonder what Alexander could have done in order to turn a man who had such good connections to the Macedonian empire as well as Alexander himself against him. This is because Alexander used bring different things to Aristotle from his expeditions, and Aristotle valued these advances in science and history, which made him support Alexander and his interest in learning. When Alexander became so bloodthirsty, Aristotle found it easy to point out Alexander’s cruelty because he didn’t worry about the effect it would have on the growth of the Macedonian empire, something Aristotle did not value.

Although some Greeks openly spoke out against Alexander, the majority of the people he ruled supposedly supported him. This seems strange, considering how the Macedonians could have overlooked Alexander’s cruelty and lack of good intentions. "The Greeks began to see Alexander as a typical Oriental despot, every bit as cruel and bloodthirsty as the barbarian Darius" (Wepman, 95). When people realize that the Macedonians did recognize why Alexander might not be great, this calls into question how Alexander could be so widely supported if he was this strongly hated. His soldiers undoubtedly noticed how self-absorbed Alexander was, even causing a few mutinies. However, they still chose to follow him. It again goes back to their values. Alexander may not have been a great leader, but he was expanding the Macedonian empire and apparently trying to unify the world. The Macedonians didn't care how cruel or bloodthirsty he was, as long as he was making their empire great. Even if his goal wasn't to please his citizens, he still helped them achieve their goals and values.

Alexander is still inspiring some people today, but others regard him as a cruel and incompetent leader. The main thing people look to him for is his military tactics. In other areas, he falls short of the desired results. This is because the only thing Alexander was so "great" at was expanding the Macedonian empire. He did not manage it well, he was not a great leader, but he was undefeated. Because Macedon valued their military prowess and the growth of their empire, Alexander was almost worshiped as a god, or at least a divine or superhuman being. Based on varying societal views, different people are regarded as being great in different ways. 

3) Time and distance greatly affect one's popular perception because their views on different issues have changed. This is demonstrated not only by Alexander the Great, but also by Christopher Columbus. When Alexander was alive, he was widely supported. There were several dissidents, but overall, he was considered great. There were many books written about him detailing his great exploits and victories, and people considered him a great leader. Now, people realize all the flaws of Alexander's empire. Being far away from the actual events change your perspective. Since Alexander's conquering of many territories don't help the people now, they are able to look at other aspects of his rule. When people aren't directly affected by things that have happened or are happening, they are able to look at it in a more unbiased way, leading them to form their own opinions.

Just like Alexander, in his life, Christopher Columbus was extremely popular, not only in Spain, but in many other places around the world. His discoveries helped to expand European influence to new continents. His advances signified the beginning of the removal of the Native Americans. During Christopher Columbus's life, it was considered alright for Europe to take over these places, but now, there are a lot people who don't like Christopher Columbus as much. Although Christopher Columbus day is still a holiday, many people do not celebrate it. This is because now that the times have changed, people believe that different things are right or wrong, and it changes their perception of people who lived in the past. 

"But it is by the results of a man's life that history must judge him" (Wepman, 107). Looking back on both Alexander and Christopher Columbus, people are able to see not only their achievements, but also their faults. This is why now there are several opinions that regard Alexander as great, but there are also several that think of him as not great. Time and distance allows one to look at the results of a man's life, not only the achievements that would have helped them if they lived in that time period, but also the many flaws that they may have chosen to overlook. Distance and time so greatly alter people's perspective because they are able to have a more unbiased opinion and the popular views are different.

   

Works Cited

Beck, Roger B., Linda Black, Larry S. Krieger, Phillip C. Naylor, and Dahia I. Shabaka. World History: Patterns of Interaction. Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. Print.

Downey, Glanville. Aristotle: Dean of Early Science. New York: F. Watts, 1962. 54+. Print.

Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

Irving, Washington. "Soujourn of Columbus at Barcelona -- Attentions Paid Him by the Sovereigns and Courtiers." Works of Washington Irving. Vol. 3. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1860. 271. The Life and Adventures of Christopher Columbus. UPenn. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

Wepman, Dennis. Alexander the Great. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. Print.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. The Ancient History Bulletin, 1999. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

Was Alexander really that "great"?

1)      Was Alexander really that “Great”? I believe that he appeared to be that great, but in reality he wasn’t because he was never really in Macedon, his father should've been called great instead of him, and he didn't treat his army the way he shoud have. Why was he given this title if he was actually an atrocious man? Even though he conquered some 3,000 miles of land and was the King of Macedon, that shouldn’t be the only reason to call someone great. If someone is considered to be great, then they would be able to conquer all that land while making choices that benefits everyone, and not just themselves. But a reason why he was thought of as great, is because he did all of this at a young age, probably around 20 to 25. He also was the only one who could tame and ride the horse Buchephalus. This name meant “ox-head”. This horse was King Phillips horse, and he claimed the horse was “too tough to break to riding”. So he was going to sell the horse. Alexander then asked if he could have a chance to tame the horse. His father gave him one and he succeeded. This may be a reason he was looked at as “great”.  While being considered a son of god by some people, other people hated him for his cruel ways. Some citizens in Macedonia didn’t like him that much because he was rarely ever in Macedon. He was too busy conquering other empires, so he was hardly ever in Macedonia. Since he wasn’t there to rule them, he put Antipater in charge. So the question is, who was the real King of Macedon? I feel that Alexander seems awfully selfish. He does what he wants and doesn’t really care about what he’s doing to other people. I think the main reason Alexander was great was because of his father, Philip. Since Philip did most of the work, like growing Macedon, building a strong army, and had ideas and battle plans . Philip did that, not Alexander. His father’s plans were to conquer Persia, but he got assassinated before he could do that. When Alexander got his father’s title, as King of Macedon, his first plan was to conquer Persia. A reason they wanted to conquer Persia because it “was the greatest empire the world had yet seen, extending from Central Asia to Libya”. After he did that he got power hungry and decided he wanted to conquer more lands, like the Mediterranean and Egypt. Something that I found kind of surprising was that he didn’t change any local administration in the areas he conquered. He kept them the same and didn’t bring in any of his own. He left things pretty much the same, although he might have had some Macedonian citizens’ act as governors. But a not-so-good thing was that he didn’t realize was that his soldiers were getting tired from all this fighting. All they did was fight and they didn't get many breaks. Alexander didn’t have much peace while he was in control. He didn’t want to stop. He wanted to keep going and going. He didn’t think about the soldiers who were actually fighting for something that Alexander wants, but maybe some didn’t want it. His army beared with him, until they were moving farther and farther away from home. When Alexander told his army that they were going to try and get India, they thought it was a step too far. His army was very tired and they could not do much more. They wouldn’t obey any of Alexander’s commands. He tried to persuade them into fighting, but soon realized it was no use and it was time to head back home. Since Alexander wanted soldiers who could fight, he actually threatened his original soldiers by telling them that he would change them out for Persian soldiers. None of the original soldiers liked the thought of that, so they were like well alright we will do it. In Persia people actually bowed down to him and treated him like a god. In Macedonia-Greece, they did not do that. Because of this, Alexander liked Persia, and the east, better. He actually started dressing like them too. When he came to Macedonia-Greece, people were like what are you doing. This is another reason why he was not a good king. Greeks and Macedonian people believed that they should only be bowing down to people/gods who are not alive. Persians actually bowed down to Alexander. Greeks and Macedonians did not think this was right. Even thought he might be considered a good general, he was not a good king at all. They were questioning who Alexander really was, just like we are questioning if he should really be called great now.

2)      If a country likes their leader, and their leader is not a good person, then that means their country may not be a good country or it might mean they value different things than other countries do. In Germany, some people actually thought Hitler was a good man. People have said that because of (anti-social) Jews, Germany had lost its moral code and had become debased and de-cultured. Apparently Hitler never meant to kill the Jews, but just to keep them somewhere that was not Germany. He also cared for animals and banned animal experiments. People also saw him as a man of God and he said his movement was Christian. Him and Mahatma Gandhi were apparently in alignment; “they both recognized the evil force they were up against”. These are the good reasons on why he did what he did. He had a bad childhood, and that is probably a reason why he did this horrible thing. Like I said before, some people didn’t think he was horrible at all, some may have considered him a great person. A reason that Hitler did all of this might be to get revenge to the bad childhood he had. Adolf Hitler couldn’t get into art school or architecture school. A reason for this was that he wasn’t creative. He didn’t come up with extraordinary masterpieces. He didn’t have any friends, and he didn’t have any interest in women. He then got bored with his life, so he decided to live in the opposite world of his—in the world of imagination. People in Vienna lived very much like Hitler. They tended to look for simple answers. Vienna had many different organizations whose followers believed and “imagined they can solve the world’s problems”. One of these “problems” was the racial mixing in Germany and Austria. There was a Viennese magazine called the Ostara. This magazine said that blond Germanic people were a “Master Race” and they were “destined to rule the world”. So the Jews and other races were viewed as enemies of this race. Anti-Semitism was the hatred of Jews. Hitler then became obsessed with this, this explains why he did everything he did (Schlesinger, 23). The government in Austria saw him as weak and they said he was unable to bear arms, so they wouldn’t take him into their military. After he got rejected, he went back to Munich. He was attracted to Munich, Germany because of their artistic life, and so he thought he might be able to find a career there (Schlesinger, 24-26). He saw that there was a war going on in Germany (World War I), and so he was very glad that this happened. He actually had been waiting for a war since he was a young kid, when he was playing with his toy soldiers. He was glad that was finally something that he could really be involved in. Since Austria didn’t want him, he went to the German military. He got in and was an excellent soldier. The German’s ended up losing the war. When Hitler came back to Germany, the whole city had changed. He didn’t really know what to do. There was an opportunity to be a part of a newly established moderate representative government in the army. Adolf thought he was fit for the job because he “had a passionate hatred of foreigners and communists” (Schlesinger, 33). He got an official job as an education officer. He promoted nationalism and discouraged socialism for soldiers. There were many political organizations and Hitler was sent to observe them. One day he came across the German Workers Party. They had the same thought that the magazine had—that Germans were the master race and Jews and other religions “threatened their purity”. I believe that most likely only the Germans thought this, everywhere else in the world thought these people were crazy. Soldiers were normally not allowed to join any political parties, but since they wanted to fix Germany and their army, they let him. He was then elected to the executive committee and was put in charge of propaganda. The party wasn’t popular at all. Not many people knew who they were. Hitler then decided to take all the parties money and make an advertisement for a huge meeting. Around 70 people showed up for the meeting and Hitler’s speech was a huge success. All Hitler’s speeches were very persuasive. “Hitler was probably the hero of the second world war and the 21st century. A man of ethical courage, a man of spiritual perception and good intent. A spiritual soul who cared – cared about all life forms, all cultures, about goodness and Light and ultimately about Truth.” This is a thought that some people believe to be true. Some people think he’s great, and some people don’t. Everyone has their own opinions and that’s just how it is.

Adolf Hitler

3)      Walt Disney didn’t actually succeed right away. A newspaper editor actually fired him because “he lacked imagination and had no good ideas.” That’s shocking since now he is known for all these animations and creations. No one thought he was good then. While he was making The Alice Comedies, he ran out of money and his company ended up going bankrupt. But that didn’t stop him. He then went to Hollywood to start a new business. His brother was already in California so he helped him out and gave him some money to start his business. Soon after that, they got a call from New York for the first Alice in Cartoonland (The Alice Comedies) featurette. From there, they went to the top of Hollywood society.  Although he didn’t give up, he kept going. Time and distance do impact someone’s popular perception. They thought Walt Disney couldn’t do much, and didn’t have any creativity, but now he’s thought as one of the most creative people to live. I think it depends on the further you go, the better or worse people think about you. Someone’s opinion about Walt Disney might have been different then, but if they see what he has done now, their opinion may have changed. 

Walt Disney

Works Cited

"10 Reasons Why Hitler Was One of the Good Guys." Wordpress. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fdiggerfortruth.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F16%2F10-reasons-why-hitler-was-one-of-the-good-guys%2F>.

"50 Famously Successful People Who Failed At First." OnlineCollege.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

"Alexander of Macedonia." Alexander of Macedonia. San Jose State University, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/alexandergreat.htm>.

"Alexander the Great." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

Ansari, Ali. "Alexander the Not so Great." BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Staff, LiveScience. "Top 10 Reasons Alexander the Great Was, Well ... Great!" LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 10 Dec. 2004. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

Wepman, Dennis, and Arthur M. Schlesinger. "1-3." Adolf Hitler. New York: Chelsea House, 1985. 7-106. Print.

"What Regions Did Alexander the Great Conquer? - Curiosity." Curiosity. Discovery Channel, n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Worthington, Ian. "How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]." How "Great" Was Alexander? [P.1]. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.

Worthington, Ian. "Was Alexander Really Great?: A Great General vs. a Great King ." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

"Walt Disney: Long Biography." Walt Disney: Long Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. <http://www.justdisney.com/walt_disney/biography/long_bio.html>.

Mayor, Liz. "Alexander the Great - Heroic Villain or Villanous Hero?" - Classical Studies. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/classical-studies/alexander.shtml>.

Michael Moore Alexander Legacy Project Blog

1) Does Alexander deserve to be called “Great”?

Alexander the Great is a unique almost larger than life man who viewed himself as a god. He got in drunken rampages that were seen by his men and fellow commanders, this is not the sign of a good leader. He lead from the front however which is a key to being a great military commander. Alexander was also a great tactician who created many battle tactics still studied today by militaries around the world. Though he can be seen as both a mediocre leader and a “Great” leader he has the characteristics of both. Alexander never lost a battle some attribute it to luck, some historians say he had eyes of an eagle. He foresaw what the enemy would attribute to battle and Alexander would change his strategy to fully engulf the enemy in all out war which his army would win. Alexander named 70 cities after himself and 1 after his horse. Of all those cities not many remain except their legacy, Alexander created a legacy after roughly 15 years of fighting and not seeing home. He would not come home until all of persia was destroyed, however he didn’t stop there he pressed on which his men did not enjoy as much as he did. When his men rebelled against him.

2) What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

The value of society is viewed with a kaleidoscope. Always changing never staying exactly the same and it never will be again. Society is humans living together in an organized community not democracy or tyranny. Everyone has a different view on “greatness.” Greatness is not the same in every community or society for that matter. Definition of “great” notably large in size, larger than life. A god in many ways is “great” gods are larger than life, have superhuman abilities, and are just better than a mortal or citizen of any society. Those who view Alexander the Great as a god are very one sided or at least don’t have sufficient evidence he was. The same “society” in a different year. President Obama probably wouldn’t have been elected in 2004, 10 years later however he is here and now. Not everyone will agree only the majority populace will be viewed in a democracy or at least those ideas have a higher chance of being voted or accepted as the norm in a society. There are many “notably great” people in this world dead and alive black and white. Societies alike will choose many people who may be encompassed to be on a list of “great’s”. Alexander is considered great in his battle tactics, his government expansion into persia, his multiple “lucky battles,” he had, his so called “eagle eye” for battle. These things define Alexander as one of the greatest people in his time. However Alexander was a mediocre person. He got drunk, went on rages, burned down things, killed his men for killing enemies, to some his bilateral efforts in government and military weren’t liked by macedonian military and government members. Alex was a mixtape of ideas and interest’s that he had and pursued over his relatively small dictatorship. This shows that greatness is not always simple and is never ever viewed with the same respect and

patriotism as others.

3) Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?

In my eyes many leaders would never be elected here and now or vice versa back in time. Hitler would have never been elected in Germany now, he rallied the people behind his ideas and used preexisting anger from losing the 1st World War to his advantage. Though hitler used in some ways brute force to secure his Nazi Parties position in the German government. Something like that now would not work at the moment, in 5 years that could very well happen with a completely new world emerging every day. Another example is President Obama being elected in the 1900’s. Notions of racism toward african americans and political soundness. Obama is an african american his skin is black, in the 1900’s I don’t think it would be possible for him to even try to run for any political position. Even local job positions would be hard for him. Now days racial equality has sprouted allowing equal opportunity for not only african americans, but asians, mexicans, and europeans. Equal opportunity would be smashed with an “Iron Fist” in the 1900’s the very idea of different colors coexisting together in the same place was a nightmare to some. It would never happen. toward the later 1900’s racial issues were brought out and fought over with equal rights coming into play not only in the USA, but all over the world. Certain things won’t happen in our current society, I highly doubt Kim Jong Un will be elected president of the best country on earth the United States of America. Ideals of democracy and tyranny may change in the next 100 years, ISIS could rule the world and people could be ok with it.

WORKS CITED

"Pothos.org." - Introduction to Alexander the Great. Thomas W Powlett, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=introduction-to-alexander>.

"Alexander of Macedonia." Alexander of Macedonia. San Jose State University, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/alexandergreat.htm>.

"Evenings with History - The Character of Alexander the Great Promo." YouTube. UALRTV, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Sept. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsBaHZ0u8_A>.

"Ancients Behaving Badly - Alexander The Great (History Documentary)." YouTube. HistoryEmpire, 9 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgr_p34VLGM>.

Pressfield, Steven. "Alexander the Great in Iraq." Alexander the Great in Iraq. Steven Pressfield, 2004. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.military.com/NewContent/0%2C13190%2CPressfield_050904%2C00.html>.

Lendering, Jona. "Alexander the God." Alexander the God. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z3.html>.

Luce, Sean. "Leadership Lessons From Alexander The Great." LPG International. LPG, 6 Dec. 2004. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luceperformancegroup.com%2FLeadership-Lessons-From-Alexander-The-Great___633506869471301047_blog.htm>.

Barksdale, Nate. "8 Suprising Facts about Alexander the Great." History Lists. Nate Barksdale, 13 May 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2Fnews%2Fhistory-lists%2Feight-surprising-facts-about-alexander-the-great>.

"Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014. <http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html>.