Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Alexander the Terrible.

Alexander the great doesn’t live up to his name in the slightest. He conquered a lot of places, he blended cultures, but what else did he do? He had some serious issues. When two of his advisors disagreed with him in adopting so much of Persia’s culture, he killed both of them, one by execution, and the other killed by Alexander himself in a fit of drunken rage. He committed numerous acts of violence, but suffered no consequences because he was above the law. He worked his soldiers to the point where they died of exhaustion, and at one point, one of his of his generals died, and he killed an entire town of people as a “sacrifice” for that general’s death. Alexander Made little to no political or financial advancements for society. The Persians hated him as a leader, even if he adopted more of the culture and even married a Persian woman. He was egotistical, short-tempered, and irrational. Brooke Allen seems to agree with me, as they said that Alexander’s greatness should be brought into question more often than it is.
Alexander’s father and mother were Philip the II of Macedon and Olympias, respectively. His mother was where he got most of his bad habits and character traits. She was arrogant, self-centered, short-tempered, and irrational, much like he turned out to be. His father was a bit more positive towards him, but still didn’t uphold punishment when he committed those aforementioned acts of violence. His father hired Aristotle, who taught him art, literature, philosophy, drama, and most other important arts at the time. But the one Alexander liked the most, was the art of war. He was taught by his own father about the strategy of war. He remained friends with aristotle until he died, however never really used too much of what Aristotle taught him.
Alexander was a nasty little man, and he did some dumb and pointless stuff. I’ve already mentioned the countless acts of violence, but how about the bad political decisions he made? Alexander the great halted all political advancement in order to conquer all the places he did. That’s like if Obama decided not to pass or veto bills for either of his terms, and just opted to try and make certain islands off Florida’s coast part of the US. It’s just not how being king works.
Alexander the Great did some terrible things, but he got out of it without consequences because he was above the law. That’s one thing Alexander was great at. Abusing power. He used his power to keep himself off the ground by killing people if they disagreed with him and blaming others when important decisions needed to be made. Alexander is the King of not just Macedon, but also of abusing power.
Anyways, that’s what makes Alexander not so great. He had a plethora of negative character traits, which led him to making poor decisions and doing some stupid stuff. He almost qualifies as clinically insane. He friggin’ killed an entire town of people just for one general! He murdered hundreds of people for absolutely no reason, even outside of the aforementioned general thing. Alexander was never great, and people need to know this. He was extremely stupid, incredibly violent, and least of all great. He was, in fact, terrible.

10 comments:

  1. 1. I thought it was interesting how much you hate Alexander, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, I just think it's interesting.
    2. I disagree with your analysis of Alexander, I think that Alexander was a great leader but I respect your opinion. I think that you should value his great admiration for expanding his empire and spread of culture instead of blowing it off.
    3. One thing that I think you could have at least mentioned some of his good values rather then listing all negatives, although you need to support your opinion, you need to mention his good sides to show respect for Alexander and make a more well rounded essay.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. I found it interesting how Ben explained and connected his essay to today.
    2. My research did differ from Ben’s, I had found that Alexander was indeed great.
    3. I wish he had given some positive input on Alexander’s life and leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought the word choice in this blog was interesting. I was surprised when i read the line calling him a “nasty little man”.
    In my research I didn’t find anything about his height.
    I wish he had mentioned some more facts about things like his empire or about the people he killed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought it was interesting how you used phrases and words to create a more casual tone to explain your point.
    My research did differ from yours; i found Alexander to be great.
    Maybe mentioning more good things about Alexander would be beneficial to convey your point wholly, because you summed up his revolutionary accomplishments in just a few words.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. You were very passionate about how Alexander was not great and you had lots of research to support your claims. I had not researched that he got his bad temper and other negative traits from his Mother and about him killing an entire town over the death of a general, so you had really good research.
    2. I had some of the same points about his temper, and I found similar trends within my research that were in your blog.
    3. I wish you had talked about if history supported you view more because it would have been really cool to see a really strong negative opinion about Alexander. I also wish you had some pictures or videos in your blog because it’s nice to have some visuals.

    ReplyDelete

  6. 1. I found it interesting the section about his family and their personalities. Seeing into their character traits can help us to better understand how he was raised, and, in turn, how he would act in the future.

    2. I did not see much about how he stopped all political advancements in my research. That is interesting to know, but I also saw that he did want to do things like improve political stances for the betterment of Macedonia.

    3. I think it would have been interesting to hear about how Alexander treated his troops. Even though he did have occasional violent behavior he also had some good experiences with troops which would have been interesting to tie in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. I thought the word choice was extremely interesting (i.e. nasty little man, friggin’,etc.), but I also thought it was interesting how bold these arguments were. You really didn’t hold back at all!

    2. My research was a bit different than this. My research showed both sides as to why Alexander was Great and why he may not be so great.

    3. Even though your arguments were super powerful, I wish you had given a little bit more of perspective on why people might think Alexander was great.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. I found it interesting how this paragraph references his mom, I didn’t ever see anything about her while researching.
    2. Why did you call Alexander the Great a little man? That was not in any of my research. I think some of your facts are not relevant to how he was not great, like his mom’s influence. Alexander might not have been great, but he was not dumb, he studied under aristostle (a very great philosopher)
    3. I wish you would have added more information and a better vocabulary, friggin’ and dumb should not be in a school report.

    ReplyDelete

  9. 1) I thought that the negatives were very interesting, and especially the choice of words he wrote.

    2) My research, as well as Laura Kate’s, showed similar aspects. However, some sources just had a perspective on why he was Great.

    3) I wish he would have mentioned why he was bad. In addition, he should have listed some positive values as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. I found how much Ben hates alexander really interesting. There is nothing wrong with what he believes, it his his opinion. I also found it really interesting on the information of Alexander’s mom that he put in his blog. I did not know much about Alexander’s mom, and it really interested me.
    2. I did not focus on why Alexander was a bad leader, I focused on why Alexander was a “great” leader. Given this, our research was very different. He focused on Alexander’s negative qualities, while I focused on his good qualities more than his bad.
    3. I wish that Ben would have added what the world thinks of Alexander today, and what past leaders thought of him. Additionally, I also wish that he would have included why Alexander is considered “great” to other people in the world today.

    ReplyDelete