Accuracy of Alexander in Oliver Stone's Alexander (2004)

Alexander’s empire stretched from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River. (Doc. 3) The land he controlled had many different terrains and would have been different to obtain, but Alexander’s desire to control the “whole world” consumed him. Even when he controlled a large amount of land, he still wanted to gain more and more. (Doc. 2) With a feather-plumed helmet and himself on a horse in the very front of every battle, Alexander made himself an easy target for enemies. (Doc. 6) This is a brave and courageous gesture he made every battle and he knew the dangers of doing that, but still did it anyway. Alexander’s vast land he conquered connected many of these cities and eventually created the Hellenistic Era. In the city of Persepolis, Alexander took over and added it to his collection of cities he now controlled. (Doc. 4) Both saying positives and negatives about Alexander, the document remain

In the Ancient World, Alexander III is viewed as a great leader.As a boy, Alexander’s dad, King Philip III, was the king of Macedonia from 323 BC till 317 BC. While King Philip III was ruling Macedonia, Alexander was taught by philosophers ,such as Aristotle, and trained to become a vigorous leader. Later on, King Philip III died of unknown causes and Alexander III took over at the age of 20, inheriting his father’s kingdom Alexander became a renowned,strong leader. Alexander was a great general who feared nothing. He rode into battles in front of his soldiers and marched into unknown lands. He had great intelligence and battle strategies thinking of the enemies' next

Many people fail to realize that Alexander has had a definite affect on us today, although not as great as he would have had on people of the past. In most parts the world today, Alexander The Great is considered a legend; however, in some places, Alexander is considered a god. One of the most notable people in history, Alexander has reached an iconic status in our world today. He possibly may have even been referred to in the Quran (Surah 18:89-98). There are still many stories told about him including folktales, and movies. In modern Iran, Alexander is still known as an evil king who nearly destroyed the ancient Persian culture and religion. Although the effect of “Alexander Mania” has died down since the time of his reign, you can still see the mark that he has left on today’s world.

Great men have lived on the face of the earth and left marks of their prowess and legacy that men of the present and even the future find it hard to emulate; a good example of such men is Alexander the Great. This paper seeks to explain further Alexander’s military genius and its positive impact on military impact over the past centuries. The paper also gives a well thought analysis why Alexander was so much successful in his wars and conquests. His big empire spread all the way from Gibraltar to the Punjab and in his leadership made Greek the lingua franca of his new World (Cary, M, 1932).

A). This shows that he is power hungry because he is dominating places just to feel more powerful. Alexander cut off a soldier's head after he saved his hat(Doc. D).

Alexander recognized he could not allow the barbarian nation neighboring him grow to independent so he quashed them with the might of his army. (Doc. 1) It became obvious that the author who was responsible for writing Document 1 was biased towards Alexander when the author wrote that ONLY thirty-four of Alexander's men were killed. Alexander said that he shared the labor with his men and would not have had them do anything he would not do. (Doc. 2) When Alexander took the Persian capital of Persepolis he took the treasure from the palace and burned it to the ground. With this move, he effectively cut down upon the Persian's supplies and stroke a crippling blow to the moral of Persia's army. (Doc. 4) When Alexander and his forces were marching through a desert one of his men found a little bit of water and offered it to Alexander, when he took it he promptly dumped it all on the ground so that he could suffer along with his

For centuries, Alexander the Great has held an eminent place in history. Arguably one of the greatest men the world has ever known, the Macedonian King accomplished many great feats in his short, but glorious life. During his reign, Alexander played several roles in the process of conquering the Persian empire, and in the assessment of his character, aspects of Alexander's capabilities of both strengths and weaknesses must be explored in him as a person, a statesman and a leader.

In document C it states “In the end, however, the causeway was completed and Alexander’s army smashed into the city.”, this is saying that even if the fight was 7 months he would never quit (Doc C). While on the move back to Greece Alexander’s followers wanted to quit and didn’t want to go on, so some stayed behind while he went on and “conquered the world” (Doc F). “At the time, Persia was probably the most powerful kingdom in the world. This mattered little to Alexander. Using his disciplined cavalry and infantry in both ways, Alexander fought his way through lands controlled by Persia - across Asia Minor, down the Mediterranean coast, into Egypt, and then to Mesopotamia. There he defeated a huge Persian army at Gaugamela.” (BGE). This quote is saying that even though Persia may be strong and powerful Alexander would still get his way wherever he went. This evidence helps explain why Alexander was great because when going through the difficult parts of his battles he would always stay strong and brave through it all despite the hard

Alexander III, known as Alexander the Great, is a name that the majority of people have come across, even thousands of years after his death. He was given the name “Alexander the Great” because of all his contributions in making the Persian empire veer in a completely different direction in such a short amount of time. Great amounts of people believe that he was deserving the that title. I, however, think that he should not have been awarded that title. I believe that he was not deserving of “the great” because he was cruel, his empire didn’t last, and all his actions were very extra and unnecessary.

There is a legend where he and his army are in the desert, and instead of drinking the precious little water reserved for him, he poured in out onto the ground (Doc D). This gesture inspired his army and kept them going through the hard times. You could argue his greatness by saying that he was a general who knew how to keep his troops going through remarkably difficult and trying times. Another legend says that at sea one day, Alexander lost his crown in the wind and a sailor swam out to retrieve it. In order for it to stay dry, the sailor had to keep it on his head. The man was given a reward for saving the crown but then was put to death because the only head that the crown could ever touch must be royal (Doc D). One could use this document to argue that Alexander was even cruel to his own people. The truth is that there are two sides to every story. If you define someone as one thing, you are bound to get debates about whether or not that one thing was true throughout their life.

One thing about Alexander that was not great was his ruthlessness. In ‘Document D’ it states that Alexander had taken his troops into the desert with almost barely any supplies at all. This fact suggests, that Alexander did not consider his own troops wellbeing or his own when he is set on his goal of conquering the world. ‘Document B’ states that when Alexander boxed in the elephants, the elephants inflicted pain upn to Porus’s

In Life of Alexander, Plutarch employs extensive methods to depict Alexander as a man of both great ambition and self-control, despite Alexander’s degeneration of character by the end of his life. In the modern world, the regression from just conqueror to unrestrained tyrant is completely congruent with the contemporary concept of ambiguous morality. In the ancient world, however, everything is expressed and understood in clear constructs; therefore, one’s character cannot change within a lifetime—it can only be revealed. The history of Alexander the Great is well-known, so Plutarch has to address common knowledge and beliefs while persuading the audience to believe in his portrayal of Alexander. Plutarch establishes Alexander as a great ruler whose out of character actions are made sensible with reinterpretations of situations and are neutralized with stories proving his positive traits. Through these methods, Plutarch successfully resolves the issue of Alexander’s conflicts in character and is able to create a convincible and consistent character.

The people were devastated and afraid that they had lost him. The two ideas are relevant to each other and support the author’s idea; that Alexander was perceived as a God to his people. However, the switch in time periods makes the book more difficult to understand than if it was explained chronologically.

During the course of his life and reign, Alexander had fought and won many battles and wars, defeating many kings and warlords throughout the ancient world. Perhaps his most recognized conquest was of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia and its ‘King of Kings’ Darius III during the Battle of Issus 1. After defeating the Persians at the Battle

Alexander the Great is remembered as a conquering man who built one of the largest empires. Some describe him as a man with a vision of world harmony. Others see him as a blood thirsty man with a mental illness. One thing that cannot be argued is that he and his empire are fascinating studies. From his rise to power to his mysterious death is interesting, but even after he died the story is fascinating. Due to his death, his empire was divided and a long power-struggle began starting with his generals. Each account has its own story of war and betrayal. These days must have been hard for those in power; they never knew who they could trust. Only the ones who were skilled in the strategy of war and ruthless enough to maintain their power