Ruby Claire Jones
Alexander the great was not great, after he died his empire went downhill. This shows he was not a great leader, because he did not govern his empire properly. He also did many things to build his power that were wrong, like killing people that wronged him including some of his friends to get revenge. Alexander also destroyed many important places that were important to many cultures. Alexander the Great was indeed not great, because his actions were not.
One of the reasons Alexander was not great was because he didn't take time to govern his empire. After he conquered one area of land he left his generals to keep it going. When Alexander was going through India his soldiers stopped and made him go back. After Alexander the Great died he divided his empire up to be ruled by his generals. Eventually the empire crashed and Alexander's empire was gone."The latter raid left the city badly damaged... 90% of Alexandria was in a state of ruins" (ABC Clio, Alexandria) Alexander the Great was thought of as great at his time and in later times, his war tactics might have been good but he wasn't. His empire definitely was not great. He was never known for his governing skills, he was known for his war tactics.
Alexander the Great did not have any mercy, he killed many friends and enemies to get his power. On one occasion he was trying to kill his Persian rival King Darius III, but Arrian of Nicomedia got to him first. Alexander was furious, he then hunted him down and murdered him. Before King Darius died he sent Alexander letters hoping for peace between them. "Darius twice sent Alexander a letter of friendship, the second time offering a large ransom for his family, cession of all the Achaemenid Empire west of the Euphrates River, and the hand of his daughter in return for an alliance. Alexander rejected both letters and marched into Mesopotamia." (Britannica, King Darius III) This shows Alexander did kill many people for revenge, and also that he wanted everything to be done by him. Alexander could not rule a country without the help of others. Alexander the Great also personally killed Cleitus. He did have a strong army, but he could have had a stronger character and not killed all of those people just to get his way. History does agree with Alexander being rough on his enemies or rivals, and even friends. Alexander was not great and should have not done this to make his country bigger.
On some occasions Alexander the Great would destroy important landmarks to religions and cultures. He destroyed the ancient city of Persepolis, which many people were upset with. People were mad at Alexander for destroying an important city to their culture. Alexander also destroyed prominent statues of religious figures to show he was better and more powerful than they were. Alexander also got rid of some parts of other cultures to make his own, Hellenistic culture. It was very wrong of Alexander to destroy places that were important to the history of the world for his own benefit. He thought to highly of himself by making hi culture more important than others. "Persians also condemn him for the widespread destruction he is thought to have encouraged to cultural and religious sites throughout the empire." (BBC, Alexander the not so great: History Through Persian Eyes) History disagreed with this because peoples' homes and cultures were destroyed, and those religious figures were very upset with him. Alexander the not great was not doing the right thing by destroying ancient cities and important structures to other cultures.
There are many ways to prove Alexander deserved his title of being great, but the ones that prove he was not great are stronger. If Alexander was great he would have known it was wrong to do the things he did. Especially if he was drunk and furious all the time, maybe if he lived longer he would be different, but he did not so in my opinion he is not great. Alexander could have been great if his character was better and he cared more about his impact on the world.
Work Cited
Emmons, Jim Tschen. "Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras,
ABC-CLIO, 2016, ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/575648. Accessed 28 Sept. 2016.
Plutarch. "P225 The Life of Alexander (Part 1 Of 7)." Plutarch • Life of Alexander (Part 1
Of 7) 1 Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Ansari, Prof Ali. "Alexander the Not so Great: History through Persian Eyes."BBC News.
N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Garbini, Giovanni. The Ancient World. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Print.
Fritze, Ronald. "Alexandria." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras, ABC-CLIO, 2016, ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/586002. Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.
"Darius III." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 29 Sept.
2016.
The Alexander Mosiac. Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great. Accessed 28
Sept. 2016.
Thomas, Carol G. Alexander the Great in His World. Malden, MA: BLACKWELL Pub.,
2007. Print.
1. I thought it was super interesting how the perspective of the Persians helped prove many of the arguments.
ReplyDelete2. My research about had the same information as in this blog post.
3. I wish you had talked about the time that Alexander got drunk and stabbed his friend, Cleitus. This would have really shown how his drinking got in the way of his actions.
1. I thought it was interesting how you talked about how violent and revengeful Alexander was, even to some of his closest friends and advisors.
ReplyDelete2. Although I chose the side of Alexander being a great leader, I still found the same information as you.
3. One thing I think you could have changed about your essay, is mentioning more about how Alexander was a drunk, and in result of this, would often have fits of rage at his soldiers.
1. I thought the point about how he had a lot of other people helping and influencing how he ruled and did not do everything individually.
ReplyDelete2. My research was mainly based on the good aspects of Alexander, but I did see some similarities within the topics we both brought up.
3. It would have been interesting if you had talked about his values and ethics. Really good blog!!
1. I thought it was interesting how you inserted links for your citations, that’s really useful. I also liked how your conclusion was similar to your introduction but not repetitive.
ReplyDelete2. My research provided more good than bad things that he did.
3. It would have been nice to see more details on the good things Alexander did so the reader could get the full story.
1. I like how you said that his governing skills weren't good but his war tactics were his main focus. I also thought it was cool how you talked about how he didn't have any mercy and that he killed even his friends.
ReplyDelete2. I did that he was good so I definitely didn't have some of those facts but I did find the fact that he killed his friends and that he had a drinking problem.
3. I wish you could have elaborated on how he killed Cleitus and why and also who he was to Alexander.