Alexander The Great Argumentative Essay

Alexander doesn't have concerns for others. According to Doc A, he made his army go on with him when they were tired and Alexander still made them go on with him. In Doc C, Alexander didn't have concerns for the civilians in Tyre, because he killed many of them. He killed, crucified and sold them into slavery. Alexander also made his army do what they didn't want to do, like ordering his army to marry Persian women and taking Darius's daughter as his

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

According to the TCI Textbook’s section on Alexander the Great, “Fighting Persia would help unite Greece by giving them a common enemy,” (pg 315 Para 8). Even though people believe this, and that they are right in the fact that he united Greece, the way that he united his Country is not heroic in any way, shape, or form. He united Greece by giving them an enemy to kill. Hero’s will unite nations because of their leadership, and because of their ability to inspire. All that Alexander did to unite his people was conquer and kill. He wasn’t protecting anyone when he started attacking Persia, it was needless, as Persia had retreated during the Persian wars, they had admitted defeat, but Alexander didn’t care about that. And even though Greece loved him, there is no looking past how he made them love

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).

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority” (Acton Institute 1). Alexander the Great was and absolute ruler that had both influence and authority; he abused both which is why many of his subjects followed him out of fear and not loyalty. Rulers are defined by how they use their power, the decisions’ they make; and how those decisions will affect the people. In my essay, I will analyze two viewpoints’ made by two professors and their viewpoints about Alexander III and whether or not he was deserving of the title “The Great”.

Alexander the Great had an amazing political and military mind. With the tutelage of his father, Philip II, and a great education, he became one of the best leaders of all time. And even as a boy, many knew Alexander’s destiny was to rule.

In document E it states that, “It took eleven years to build his empire.” The evidence shows that he had a big ego that made him build his empire in little time. Also, he just want it yo have a bigger, and strong empire. Additionally, in document A it states that, “In 334 BCE, Alexander crossed from Macedonia to Asia with an army of about 40,000 people.” Alexander big self-admiration made him take thousands of people to battle, and don't care what happen to them. He should had think about the lives he was going to loss while fighting. Alexander will never fit the honor of amazing because of his huge self-worth, and because he was

Alexander had been taught many things from a very young age such as academic subjects, politics, sports, and warfare which made him think very highly of himself. His father Philip of Macedonia made an extremely strong army and took over many Greek polises and wanted to take over the Persian Empire. This struck Alexander’s aspiration to take over the Persian Empire as well. Alexander then inherited his father’s kingdom at the age of 18 after his father

It is particularly difficult to assess Alexander as a statesman, for his views as a statesman were in a state of flux when he died. His political creations were still in a developmental stage and had as yet take definite shape, but Alexander did display political wisdom by separating financial, civil and military power. One of his great achievements was his financial measure in reforming the coinage and bringing into line with each other the decimal currency of Persia with the duodecimal system of Macedonia. This was not only a great contribution to economic prosperity throughout the empire, but also impeded Athens as competition and involved her as a trading partner instead. Alexander also entertained a grandiose plan for uniting the East and the West in a world empire of racial equality. Unfortunately, this did not succeed as he planned. Nevertheless, the King's conquest and findings of

Alexander killed thousands of people, taking over cities with violence for power you don’t need is not something you would do if you were great. In document C it says “The remaining survivors, some 30,000 in number, he sold into slavery. Two thousand men of the military age were crucified.” This shows that Alexander was not great. He used violence against people, to overcome cities he did not need just for more power. He destroyed homes and took away lifes. So many people were caused to have a painful and violent death because of Alexander. In document E it gives the estimated amount of enemy soldiers and civilians killed in just four major battles, 100,00.

The story of Alexander the Great begins, as one might expect, with his father. Alexander was the son of Philip II, King of Macedonia, who had already made a name for himself. Philip became king to a land surrounded by foes on every side in 359 B.C., but by 356 B.C. he had squashed most of them and built the strongest army in the world (Savill 4). His father was an accomplished ruler who was not willing to sit by and let his land be beset by those who would see it harm. Philip used his army to expand his territory into Greece, first by subduing the northern regions, which included the Athenian port of Amphipolis. He then set his eyes to Athens and Thebes, defeating them at the battle of Chaeronea (Stoneman 18). This battle would be described as some as the end of Greek freedom. After the battle, Philip created the League of Corinth, a treaty of sorts, that basically said Greece was under Philip’s control. Philip had conquered Greece, and he now set his eyes on Persia. He would not make any progress towards his conquest, as he was assassinated in 336 B.C. by one of his bodyguards. Some would argue that Alexander may have had a part in his assassination

At a young age, Alexander believed his destiny was to exact revenge on the Persians for the burning of Athens 7, but as his campaign became longer and longer, his ideals changed and his vision for the ‘new world’ came into existence. His vision for a united Macedonia, along with conquered countries being absorbed into the empire, came with the prospect of global trade routes, intermingling of the Persian and Macedonian cultures and people, and interracial marriage between royalty of Persian and Macedonian empires 8. His vision was far more ambitious than what the Macedonian leaders had sought after: he attempted to combine the two greatest powers in the known world to create an even greater power 9. He was an idealist because where his predecessors had aimed to keep the Macedonian race ‘pure’ and rule all empires, including the Persians; Alexander sought to include the massive Persian population into the empire, utilizing their unique skills and culture, which would only benefit the kingdom as a whole 10. His many attempts to integrate the Persian people into his own included using Persian soldiers in his ranks, promoting interracial marriage, and even marrying 2 foreign princesses to better consolidate his vast empire 11. While his many attempts ultimately failed and the fragile alliance between the Persians and Macedonians fell apart, his

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

Alexander III of Macedon, widely known as Alexander the Great, is opinioned by some people to have been a ruthless man who only had a thirst for conquest , but according to others he was a man of intellect and “statesmanlike vision” (Hammond Preface). In N.G.L. Hammond’s book The Genius of Alexander the Great, as stated in the preface, he tries to refrain from writing based on his own opinion of Alexander, and instead analyzes the few surviving narratives on Alexander’s achievements in an unbiased manner. He portrays the conquests, struggles, and greatest achievements of Alexander’s career, such as the building of his empire that stretched from the eastern Mediterranean coast through Asia Minor and the