Historian Peter Burke: A Historical Analysis

In The Death of History is Bunk, Patrick Watson argues that the decrease of historical content in the curriculum does not indicate that history, as a subject, is declining. While many complain about the decreasing prominence of history classes in Canadian schools, the content of those classes is excessively dull as it consists of memorizing lists of facts. Despite this, there are still protests that knowledge of “defining events” is required to contribute to “the National Conversation”. However, history is not so simple as a list of events—it is the sum of the small happenings in society around the events. A whole variety of factors influence history, which is created by the common people. Unlike Americans, who turn to their constitution for

Father: Although I believe Alexander has true belief in his own divinity, I can accept that he exploits it to use as propaganda to gain loyalty within the Persian Empire. Propaganda is necessary, although many Macedonians do not see the correlation to Alexander’s divinity. Without this dramatized status there is no blind following from the Persians. Alexander proved himself

“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”.

Studying history can be an active, often arduous process, dependent on making assumptions with the evidence available and proving those assumptions to be correct or otherwise. But it can also be an easy task if done incorrectly, one of cutting corners and assuming falsehoods to be true for the sake of convenience. This is the way that many historians, amateur or professional, approach history. Not only does this approach exclude any possibility for well-constructed conclusions to be made, it can also leave the populace ignorant of the truth. In “The Strange Death of Silas Deane”, James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle argue that history is not merely the act of collecting data-rather of making assumptions about the data-through the use of countless rhetorical questions, paragraph organization, and a sardonic tone.

In Telling the Truth About History, three historians discuss how the expanded skepticism and the position that relativism has reduced our capacity to really know and to expound on the past. The book talks about the written work of history and how individuals are battling with the issues of what is “truth.” It likewise examines the post-modernist development and how future historians

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

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.

Romm did go into much detail about Alexander: he explained Alexander’s family history, his top advisors, his love life, his illness, and over all Alexander’s personality. Romm describes Alexander’s family history and how he came to assume the throne after his father was assassinated. Romm provided historical evidence of Alexander’s family through the opening of Alexander’s tombs and sculptures found of other members of his family. Also mentioned were Alexander’s top military advisors and closest friends, known as the “Successors.” Detail was provided that they did not try to succeed the king for the first seven years after Alexander’s death. They wanted his power, but not the throne. This supported the author’s idea of people desiring power but how they were conflicted with their respect for Alexander. Romm discussed Alexander’s marriages as well as his quest to conquer, showing a different side of Alexander. Alexander is mostly portrayed with a great work ethic, imbued with a great desire. Through his last days, however, Romm expresses more of

Best known for his writings of leading figures in antiquity and his essays on ethics and virtue, Plutarch’s biography on Alexander the Great and his vision would influence tremendously upon future western writers in regard to the interpretation of Alexander the Great. Plutarch’s Alexander’s fortune and virtue claimed that Alexander’s aim for his empire was “homonoia," the unity of mankind and “fusion” between civilizations. According to Plutarch, Alexander rejected the traditional “Greek” view that Persian were “barbarians," and instead proclaimed that Alexander was intentionally trying to establish a sense of oneness throughout his empire. In the more than two millennium since Plutarch’s biography and writing of Alexander, there has been a

The Life of Alexander written by Plutarch, provides an abundance of supporting evidence throughout the source, that justifies and defends these three claims: That Aristotle’s teachings attempted to navigate Alexander down a specific path; however, Alexander forged his own ideologies, while keeping some of Aristotle’s teachings and that although Alexander was branded as permissive and sympathetic for his frail behavior toward Persians; His lenient and respectable behavior helped advance his empire and ultimately overtake the Persian empire. In the first paragraph of The Life of Alexander, Plutarch instructs the reader to ignore the lack of historical context; instead, focus on his decryption and explanation of these men’s morals, ethics, and

After Alexander’s father Philip II died, there was not someone better than Alexander the Great to take the throne. Unfortunately, many of the Greek cities thought he was too young and inexperienced to be able to handle the throne and do a proper job like his father. People doubts and reluctant to accept him as their rightful King did not discourage him, to prove no man can do a better job than him and put people doubts at ease, Alexander the Great attacked the ancient city of Thebes. He did this to instilled fear, in people and make them change their minds of doubting him and obeyed

Both Plutarch and Arrian agree that Alexander has indeed amassed a considerable debt, just with the upkeep of keeping his army functioning. The differences with the two accounts, is basically stated by Plutarch, who admits to using multiple sources for the information he has obtained following Alexander.

Alexander the Great is a Villain, because he Killed his Brother and Father. He is a villain because he killed many people, including his brother and his Father, King Philip II. It is not right for Alexander to kill someone for no reason, especially his own relatives. Here is a very helpful source called “History for Kids” “Many people suspected that Alexander and his mother had plotted to have Philip killed, but no one knew for certain” ALEXANDER BECOMES KING OF MACEDONIA (1). This proves that Alexander and his mom did plan the king’s death on purpose, which rules out the possibility that Alexander killed his father on accident. This also proves that the people of Macedonia knew about the murder, but didn’t tell the king about it. It seems as if the people were more loyal to Alex, then the king. Alexander the Great is also a villain because not only did he kill his Family, but he killed innocent people as well. This is an

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