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.
