In contrast, the film Alexander (2004) and Western Civilization, Volume I to 1715 (Spielvogel) shows the true flaws in the film that it totally perceives a naked eye to a viewer. The movie misses the mark on complete accuracy with the real rich ancient history that surrounds the man of Alexander the Great. While, watching the film they make it to believe to show like it’s a fictional style documentary about this ancient world. They do this by using timelines, going back and through history, and having the entire film almost being narrated by Ptolemy. It easily misleads the viewer and can contain an incorrect way to show the world of one the most influential leaders of all time Alexander the Great, This movie misses the accuracy of true events, how the enemies of Alexander the Great …show more content…
To begin, a major impact on how inaccurate this film portrays Alexander the Great with conjunction to real history is that Alexander always seems to be perceived week. This is shown in the movie on numerous moments. One, of them every that seemed to be present in the film was every time Alexander the Great made a decision he always seemed to be depressed and could not settle with his decisions. For example, when his troops were giving up in the film and did not want to explore India no longer. He seemed to always be upset with these emotions in that he always needed advice from Bagos and Hephaestion. It turned so bad in the film they depicted Alexander the Great crying in the tent and did not want to see anybody because he couldn’t make up his mind about India or concede to that fact he killed Cleitus. Another failure, they use in the film to portray Alexander the Great in regards that he wants and has a huge desire for glory. In Western Civilization, Volume I to 1715, it states “The character of Alexander is never developed in depth. He is shown as a weak character who is plagued by doubts over his own decisions and often seems obsessed
Secondly, Alexander wasn’t great because he was ruthless. In Document E it states, “Estimated enemy soldiers and civilians killed in four major battles was 100,000” (Doc. E). The documents proves that Alexander wasn’t great because that was only the number of enemies of Alexander, and it didn’t include his own soldiers he forced to go into 4 major battles, probably killing thousands of soldiers each battle. He also went and killed innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the fighting, but were still killed in the battle. In addition, Document B stays, “...Alexander then threw his calvary in a circle around the entire force, and ordered the infantry to lock shields, to group tightly and to advance as a phalanx…” (Doc. B). This fact proves
The finale reason Alexander was great is because he was an inspiring leader. For example, in document A, it shows all the places he conquered, this shows he’s an inspiring leader, because of what he could accomplish, which could be inspiring. Also, it shows how far he walked and how determined he was which could inspire somebody. Another example, is in document F, this shows how inspired Khushi is because of Alexander The Great, which could rub off on somebody else, and it tells us all the things Alexander did for him and how grateful he is, which is very inspiring.
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
Alexander was an outstanding ruler of Greece in his short amount of years that he ruled. “Alexander became king when he was only 20 years old and after his father Philip was assassinated in 336 B.C.E.” (BGE). Alexander was Creative, also how he made some remarkable achievements and how he had concern for others. Was Alexander Great or Not Great? Three reasons that show that are his empire was at it’s greatest was 2,000,000 sq. miles, the way he puzzled his enemies at war and how he adapted many other cultures to his empire.
Does that not seem to you like betrayal and rejection of his own people? Alexander could never have had it both ways. As the conquerors we will never accept the customs of the conquered. Political move it may have been, but it was the wrong one. At the trial of the royal pages conspiracy, it was stated to Alexander that he abhorred the customs of his own country. Thus it was the king of Persians, not of the Macedonians that they wanted to kill13. Alexander has simply become so far removed from his own people that some do not even see him as their own king. The plot against his life was to pursue him as a deserter in accordance with the conventions of war14. When a sailor rescued Alexander’s crown from the sea and placed it on his own head to keep it dry and out of harm’s way, he was rewarded handsomely for the rescue. When it was pointed out by another to Alexander that the crown had been on another’s head, regardless of the situation he had the same man promptly executed on the belief that it was a bad omen. With the adoption of Persian luxury came outright abuse of power and skewed
According to Doc F, Alexander's empire only lasted 10 years without an heir because Alexander didn't leave an heir. He thought he was very strong and would not die but he did die in June of 323 BCE. Alexander's generals split up the land and then it began to fall into pieces because there was no heir. According to Doc A, he wasn't able to keep his army to keep going on with him. His army rebelled to go on any further and so Alexander wasn't able to control his army. He made his soldier's keep on going. According to Doc B, he tortured many people and killed and crucified people without hesitating. Lastly, in Doc C, Alexander was able to get more lands easily because the people surrendered without a fight. Alexander had a big ego that made him stronger but made him kill more people instead of doing other things. For example, Alexander could have made the people live instead of killing them.
How great was Alexander the Great? Alexander was not great because he killed thousands of innocent people, and his empire did not last long. He was brutal to the people of Tyre. For example, in Doc.
Alexander the Great was not great because he made bad decisions. One bad decision he made was, in the legend of the helmet (Document D), his men offer him the helmet with water inside. Instead of not accepting it so his men could have
All of what historians know about Alexander the Great is a mixture of fact and legend. Alexander was born in 356 B.C. as heir to the throne of Macedonia. He was only 20 years old when he set out to conquer Pirsa. After 8 long years of fighting for persia, Alexander was diagnosed with malaria and he died 10 days after. How great was alexander the great? Alexander was great because he was a military genius, he spread greek culture, and he was an inspiring leader.
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.
Some people say Alexander the Great was a good leader, others think otherwise. I will show you that Alexander the Great was in fact not a great leader and ruler over his empire. Alexander was a ruthless and brutal leader to put it in the simplest terms. Alexander was a very severe leader for many reasons. Alexander the Great had everything handed to him because his dad was King Philip II. He had conquered many lands and had a well-trained army, and to his detriment Alexander inherited them directly from his dad after he was assassinated. Overall, Alexander the Great was not that Great.
However, the accuracy of the film takes a turn when transitioning from Alexander taking over gaining more power and taking over the thrown and the battle of Gaugamela. Covering Alexander’s accomplishments concerning the defeat of the rebellion of Thebes, the battle of Issus, and the conquering of Tyre would have drastically increased the running time of the film, but these events are important to understanding Alexander’s overall triumph.
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.
Alexander III of Macedon or commonly known as Alexander the Great was a King of Ancient Greek kingdom Macedon and a member of the Argead dynasty. He spent most of his ruling years on an extraordinary military campaign through Asia and northeast Africa and by the time he was 30 he had created one of the largest empires of the Ancient world, stretching from Greece to Egypt and into northwest India. Alexander is thought to be by most people as the greatest military command that ever lived however this wasn’t always the case. Many historians argue that Alexander was in fact the opposite to what he perceived to be. This essay will essentially focus on the good and bad side of Alexander’s campaigns and through the study of various sources we will be able to determined the real truth behind his leadership.
The film, Alexander, is a historic drama about Alexander the Great, who became legendary for his military prowess. Ptolemy I Soter, a Macedonian general, narrates throughout the film. Moments of Alexander’s childhood was shown, such as his difficult relationship with his mother, Olympias, and his father, King Philip II of Macedon. After Alexander became King of Macedonia, he sets out to conquer the Persian Empire. He continued his eight-year campaign across East Asia, before returning home to Babylon. In the film, Alexander struggled to convince his army to continue to follow him across Asia. It was after the Battle of Hydaspes in India that encouraged Alexander to return home. The film also showed Alexander’s private relationships with