Who Is Alexander The Great A Military Genius

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

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).

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

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.

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.

The reason Alexander is great is because he was a military genius. In document B, it states “when Alexander saw this, he move his troop in all different directions to puzzle Porus.” This sentence shows how he used his head to confuse Porus with his tactics. This tactic confused Porus and Alexander was able to surround them. Alexander was a strategic military genius was a reason

Alexander the Great, born of King Philip of Macedonia, was one of the greatest conquerors of history. In my opinion, Alexander was a great leader and warrior. For example, in Document B, Alexander used strategy to win over a battle. The strategy he used was complicated, but well thought out; Alexander moved his troops in all different directions to keep Porus puzzled, and took his cavalry to various points along the river bank where he would create a war cry so that Porus would parallel the movements on the other sides of the river until he no longer responded. Now Porus elephants were boxed in, and the elephants trampled their own men because they had no driver's upon them. In this way Alexander won a battle, and through his cleverness, he

First of all, Alexander the Great was not actually great because he became king at the age of twenty and then launched an invasion on the Persian Empire. Alexander killed the king of Persia and made himself the new king. In the Background Essay, it says “at the age of 20, Alexander inherited his father’s kingdom and set out with the army to conquer Persia.” Also it says “The Persian king, Darius, was killed in the aftermath and Alexander replaced him on the throne.” In document A, it shows all of the Persian cities that Alexander has taken over.

I think Alexander deserves the title of Alexander the Great. He was 20 years old when he launched his invasion into the Persian Empire. The evidence I will use are these documents. The legend of the helmet, document D. The battle of Porus, document B. Alexander's empire compared to the Roman Empire, document A, E. I think Alexander was great, because of the size his empire and how little time it took him to make.

Alexander was great because he leaded his men into a fighting zone but he prepared it to attack his enemy. It is true that Alexander had some bad points. For example “they scooped up with difficulty what they could and hurried back to Alexander then, just before they reached him, they tipped the water into a helmet and gave it to him. Alexander, with a word of thanks for the gift, took the helmet and , in full view of his troops, poured the water on the ground.” (Doc D).

Alexander the so-called ‘Great’ was a legendary conqueror who in his short lifetime was able to overthrow the Persian Empire, the most powerful kingdom at that time. He was born in 356 BCE to King Philip and Queen Olympia of Macedonia. Alexander’s warring career jumpstarted at the age of 20 in the year 336 BCE, due to the assassination of his father in which he inherited his father’s kingdom. Over the span of 11 years, Alexander and his small fleet of men of about 40,000 took over and ruthlessly conquered the Persian Empire. Sadly, this conquest was short-lived by Alexander’s sudden death in the year 323 BCE, in which his unstable kingdom with a lack of a structured governmental system quickly broke apart in the period of 10 years. Therefore, because of the cruel and the disorganized nature of the way Alexander the ‘Great’ conquered and maintained the Persian Empire, he does not deserve to be referred as ‘Great’.

Alexander the Great was known to be a fierce man, whose main focus was his thirst for conquest to expand his empire, but according to Hammond, Alexander was a “statesmanlike vision”, whose charming personality and intellect earned him the appreciation and respect of his subjects (Hammond, Preface). To his advantage Alexander used intellect and personality to overcome nationalism and racism to build his great empire, proving his devotion and leadership qualities. In N.G.L. Hammond’s book, The Genius of Alexander the Great, Hammond refrains from writing about Alexander’s achievements, conquests, and struggles throughout his career from a biased point of view. Hammond’s main purpose for writing this book is to evaluate the life of Alexander in

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

Although Alexander the Great had a minimal army he was an extremely successful military leader. Alexander was a master in the art of war strategy. He was able to read combat well. He was smart enough to know how communicate with his officers that allowed him to optimize his troops. Instead of rushing in and meeting his opponent head on, he found ways to meet him in moves that would break up the much larger army. It was like a game of chess and you have to penetrate the weakest part of your opponent. He had to first figure out what the weakest link was. In the case of Darius, it was the center, and the fact they used smaller swords in battle. Alexander used much longer spears in the front line to keep distance and inflict damage.

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