Why Alexander The Great Is A Villain

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

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

“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”.

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

According to Doc B, he used this amazing strategy of faking attacks on the Hydaspes River to relax Porus (his enemy) and trick him. Then as soon as Porus fell for the trick, Alexander went on attack and ended up demolishing his army (Doc B). Another example is in Doc C, where he had defeated the Tyrians after they refused to surrender. The Tyrians would stay in front of their village and fight so Alexander sent his army in to burn down their town take their people (Doc C). Also, in chapter 30 in History Alive, Alexander would conquer people with terror and kindness. If people surrendered, he would still conquer them but would be nice and let them keep their leaders. If they refused, he would threaten to burn down their city (or actually do burn it down like you heard in Doc C). This evidence shows that Alexander was powerful because many people admire the strategies of Alexander the great. They were unique, and nobody else could come close to him in warfare at his time. This is one of the many reasons why 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

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

When Alexander conquered Egypt, Alexander respected the culture and the beliefs the Egyptians had. Alexander never enforced his culture on the conquered people but he did support Greek culture. Alexander instead left the culture alone and tried to learn about the culture instead of changing it. If he was a ruthless leader, he would of enforced Greek culture onto the conquered people and wouldn’t of allowed the people's culture. Another example of this is that he also respected the knowledge and variant cultural traditions of the people he conquered. Many ruthless leaders would look down upon the other's cultures but instead, Alexander accepted the other's culture and tried to learn the culture. When Alexander took over the Persians, he showed respect for the conquered Persians and allowed the Persians to still have Persian governors and beliefs. Instead of making Macedonians and Greek rule the Persians, he allowed the Persians to keep their governments and beliefs. If Alexander was a bad person, he would've removed the Persian governors and would’ve changed the Persian beliefs to Greek beliefs. One thing Alexander actually did was he adopted Persian customs. Alexander actually liked other cultures and adopted some parts of other cultures. A ruthless leader would of never adopted other culture if he thinks his culture is

This information shows that Alexander wasn’t great was because conquered land for no reason. During all of the battles that took place to conquer some land thousands of people died. This unnecessary taking of land cost lives of the people trying to defend their lives and homes, the soldiers that were in Alexander’s army also lost their lives. The soldiers that were part of Alexander’s had to leave their families to go risk their lives for unnecessary land. Alexander had already conquered Persia when he continued on all the way to India.

After all the deaths and land stolen from others, his empire did not even last that long after he died. In Document E it states “Alexander’s empire held together… 10 years”. For how many death there where in his battles, it is not reasonable for him to take all that land. The part that does not make sense is that nobody in his empire took over. Alexander’s drive for battles sacrificed “Enemy soldiers and civilians… 100,000 killed” (Document E). That is so many family members hurt or killed. He ran four major battles from Europe to Asia to India and all through Africa. After he died his Empire just gave up on all the land they fought for.

In conclusion, Alexander was great as a general, not great as a person, and therefore, is a little bit of both. He could keep his troops going in times of trial and hold grudges with the best of them. However, he can't be defined by just one thing. When writing about Alexander the Great, the Basileus of Macedonia, the Hegemon of the Hellenic League, you have to look at all sides of

Alexander III of Macedon or Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia when he was about fourteen years old, and thus began his reign of terror and destruction. Alexander’s worthiness of his title, “Alexander the Great” has been highly debated. Historians have opposing views on whether Alexander is deserving of such a hyperbolic title. Alexander was an excellent military leader who conquered many lands and created an empire, however despite his victories his empire came crashing down only ten years after his death. This begs the question how great was Alexander the Great?

Was Alexander great or was he a selfish leader? Alexander was a great leader. He was a war leader who took over most of Persia. He was great because he was a inspiring leader, a military genius, and he spread culture.

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