Benjamin Franklin once said, “You can do anything you set your mind to do.” Alexander the Great did anything that he set his mind to, whether it was conquering Persia, or destroying Greece. Alexander the Great didn’t exactly want to destroy Greece, but he didn’t try too hard to save Greece either. Did he? Alexander the Great took the position of king once his father, Philip ll of Macedon, was murdered. He was a strong king, but had his mind set to conquering cities instead of help saving his own from desenigrating to pieces. He started off the king of Macedonia, and conquered many empires such as Persia. He was determined to spread Greek culture, but that failed and his empire started to fall apart. Alexander rose to power because of his father, …show more content…
According to ABC News, “Historians consider him a brilliant military tactician with an exceptional ability to rally his troops in the face of what might have seemed overwhelming challenges.” The historians have great points, however they do not have strong enough points because, although Alexander was a strong military leader on his side, he didn’t focus enough on helping his civilization.“ He failed to build the governing structure necessary to secure and sustain his vast empire, and it disintegrated after his death.” This proves that he was too focused on saving his empire from getting conquered, then saving his empire from failure which is what later happened. Alexander didn’t spend enough time saving his empire. He was too busy traveling everywhere else while his kingdom was suffering and slowly falling apart. While he was traveling, there was no proof of anyone else taking care of Macedonia. Therefore, this proves that his failures caused the empire to disintegrate. Alexander the Great was a strong military leader, but did he really care about his own empire or more about …show more content…
He was only ready to lead a military. Alexander failed to expand an empire and he fell and made his empire fall with him. Not only that, but he also ruined one of the greatest kingdoms. For all of these reasons he is a villain. He had no idea what to do with his empire. All he did know was how to lead a military. Would you really want someone who only knew how to run an army, lead you? Would you want to live in a place where you and your home doesn’t matter? That’s what would happen if Alexander was your leader. Do you really want that? We can’t let this happen to us today. People like Alexander are villains, we can’t let them ruin our culture. If we let such a villainous person be such powerful person, then history will repeat itself and we will end up just like
Alexander adopted Persian governing practices, but he had little use for Persian culture. According to his Greek biographer Plutarch, he considered himself "a governor from God and a reconciler of the world." He hoped that Greek culture would, through his actions, permeate all of Asia, inspiring its peoples to pursue virtue, excellence, and truth. This heroic idealism blended with practicality in his plan to develop the Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus rivers as commercial waterways linking all of Asia These undertakings promised to be long and difficult, however, and Alexander was an impatient man. His soldiers' unwillingness to proceed past the Indus was a great disappointment to him, for which he compensated by throwing his own festivals and celebrations. Alexander showed early leadership qualities. When King Phillip invaded Thrace, he left Alexander in charge of Macedonia at the age of 16. During his father's absence, one of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi, rebelled. Alexander was able to mobilize an army and put down the rebellion. In 336 B.C, Alexander's father was assassinated, putting Alexander on the throne at the age of 20. Shortly after this, Alexander left Macedonia with his armies to put down rebellions in the countries of Illyria, Thrace and Greece, all of which had previously been conquered by King Phillip. Alexander then moved his armies into Asia Minor and began to conquer the peoples there. Among the countries conquered by Alexander were Syria, Phoenicia and
Alexander believed in a strong national government and he feared a weak government that the people could overthrow. If we lived in Syria or any other war-torn country right now, it would be the complete opposite because Alexander’s views are different from theirs. Though he had changed his views a few times, it seems that his final opinion was one that he truly believed in. In our country now, his
Road to self-destruction Many circumstances led to the end of the Athenian golden age. Ironically, the formation of the Delian league marked the beginning stages of the end of the Athenian golden age. The same league that would prove instrumental in pulling up Athens from state to empire, eventually played a role in its destruction. Athens' harsh treatment towards other weaker states served as an instigator for hatred and resentment.
Although Alexander the Great of Macedonia’s actions as a conqueror mark him as a great leader to many, they are marred by an arrogance which is what gives him the label of a bad leader. This cocksure behavior increased as the years went on and led to the intolerable pride Alexander carried marking him as an unsatisfactory leader from the present perspective. Alexander acted brashly just to earn glory and did not consider the consequences of if he had been injured. In The Battle of Gaugamela it mentions Alexander leading his army “with Alexander himself at the head of them, vigorously pressed the assault” (Arrian, The Battle of Gaugamela). This action of his is a cry for glory, not for Macedonia, but just for Alexander.
...f the conquered territories to remain relatively unchanged, Alexander was able to subdue potential unrest before it occurred. However, Alexander’s rule was not without discord though. Many Machiavellian actions for the good of the empire were seen as unsavory to a select few. While this created some distrust, Alexander’s power and governing expertise were enough to overcome these adversities. Because of the characteristics mentioned above, Alexander the Great is as close to a true Machiavellian ruler as humanly possible.
Even though Alexander III of Macedonia, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, only lived to be 32 years old, his accomplishments were so vast it would be impossible to capture them all in a 3-hour Hollywood film. The well-known director, Oliver Stone, spent years studying Alexander and dreaming of making an epic film about his life. Stone's 2004 film, Alexander, was met with reviews that made it sound as if it was mediocre or disappointing, but the problem with it is that in the era of exciting action-driven Hollywood films, Alexander asks viewers to go deeper than they are accustomed. The length of the film was considered too long, but the history of Alexander is so huge that it is actually too short. Since Alexander lived more than 2300 years ago, and much of the information on Alexander's life has been lost over time, it seems to me that Alexander accurately depicts the historical era, Alexander's relationships, battle scenes and the different cultures involved in Alexander's conquests.
Many small government officials took pieces of land, changing the laws and affecting the citizens in big ways. Ten years later, the empire fell apart, leaving people with many burdens. Alexander left his empire after he died in a big mess, hoping someone could help him. This was unsmart because even though death might not be expected, it is always important to create a will with as much at stake as there was in Alexander’s situation. In summary, Alexander was not smart because he wasn’t able to think ahead to help his empire stay strong.
A leader is a team player and Alexander the Great was the opposite of that. He was greedy and didn’t care about the future of his empire. Alexander the Great did not attempt to create a son which would be the heir to his empire and when Alexander the Great reigned he did not create any form of a government. When Alexander the Great died his last words were, “I foresee a great funeral contest over me”. After his death with no one in control and no government in place Alex the Greats Empire collapsed and his land he conquered split up into new kingdoms. These kingdoms fought over power (Galloway). Alex the Great spent a majority of his life creating a huge empire just to have it break up, so all the pain he caused to the territories he took over were almost pointless. He was so focused on being the best he never considered the fact that his legacy would die after him. Hence, Alexander the Great caused more harm than good to his people due to his overwhelming greed and not basing his decisions on the preservation of his
Alexander the great was a villain because he was egotistical. Historians have long argued that there have been many examples of Alexander doing things that favor himself and himself only. After Alexander’s father died he wanted to be king. “According to Alexander the Great” by Bio “The army proclaimed Alexander the feudal king and
Alexander believed he was a divine mediator for the world. In other words, he believed he was chosen by god to solely lead the world. Thus, Arrian wanted to emphasize Alexander's arrogance because he believed that he was god-like and should rule over everyone. Furthermore, after Alexander’s death, he still had extravagant plans for his empire. Alexanders wanted ridiculous projects to be completed. He wanted to build one thousand war ships to fight the Carthaginians and other African nations, and create cities and populate them with his people in Europe and Asia to expand his empire. In Diodorus’ Alexander’s Last Plans, He explains Alexander’s final wishes from a realistic standpoint. Diodorus writes, “When theses plans had been read, the Macedonians, although they applauded the name of Alexander, nevertheless saw that the projects were extravagant and decided to carry out none of those that had been mentioned.” Diodorus emphasized that Alexander believed his people should continue to follow him and his beliefs long after his death. The projects in Alexander's will spoke about were time consuming, and extravagant. Furthermore, many people did not share Alexanders beliefs of world
First, Alexander the Great is a villain because he caused the destruction of his own empire. Throughout his reign as king, he was constantly asked to name a successor to take over the empire if something happened to him, but Alexander always refused. Alexander needed to name a successor to keep his empire going, but he “both refused to provide one, and killed off any man who could be seen as one…” (The John Maxwell Company). Alexander was so determined to stay in control of his empire that he killed any man who he thought could be seen as his successor. He cared more about himself and his power than his empire and it’s success. When
Alexander the Great was a terrible ruler for many reasons. When he was ruling, he went and conquered non-stop. As a result, people didn’t have a leader because he wouldn’t stick around to help lead people -- he moved on to the next civilization. According to Alexander the Great, “He moved quickly to gain control of the rest of Greece, although he was not yet 20 years old.” This proves he is a villain because he didn’t help any of his people because they had nobody to lead them. Also, according to Abc’s Study Suggests Alexander Not So Great “There is no doubt that Greek culture became deeply entrenched in the major cities under his rule, many of which he named Alexandria, but the story in the hinterlands, where "most people lived" is still unclear, Stewart says”(24). This proves he was not a leader because the place where most people lived didn’t have anything left. He could have killed the culture that was there because nothing says
“There is nothing impossible to him who will try” (Anonymous, Google). Alexander was not willing to give up in his lifetime. Nothing satisfied him. He always wanted to keep building his empire. Alexander the Great became a king at the young age of twenty. He was a strong leader who expanded his empire from Italy to India for eleven years with little rest. Alexander the Great was really great because Alexander made remarkable achievements while king of Greece, and he was very intelligent. Some may argue the achievements weren’t well earned, however these achievements lead to great successes.
What do you think makes someone great? Is it leadership, courage, intelligence, or discipline? Whatever makes someone great, that is what Alexander the Great is. The Greeks were weak after the Peloponnesian War, and King Philip II of Macedonia saw this as an opportunity to take over. He conquered Greece and then was about to move onto Persia, when he was assassinated in 336 B.C., leaving his son, Alexander the Great, to be king. Alexander went on to finish what his father had started. He quickly took over Persia and then pushed eastward into Central Asia. He returned to Persia and blended Greek and Persian cultures. A couple of years later, he became very ill and died. In order to be great, you must have leadership, courage, and remarkable
Alexander the Great is hailed, by most historians, as “The Great Conqueror” of the world in the days of ancient Mesopotamia. “Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BCE. His parents were Philip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and Alexander inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom. He quickly dealt with his enemies at home and reasserted Macedonian power within Greece. He then set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire” (Web, BBC History). It is important to note, which will maybe explain his brutal actions, that Alexander was only twenty years old when he became the king of Macedonia. “When he was 13, Philip hired the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be Alexander’s personal tutor. During the next three years Aristotle gave Alexander training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy, all of which became of importance in Alexander’s later life” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). “In, 340, when Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and invaded Thrace, he left his 16 years old son with the power to rule Macedonia in his absence as regent, but as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled and posed a danger to the country. Alexander assembled an army, led it against the rebels, and with swift action defeated the Maedi, captured their stronghold, and renamed it after himself to Alexandropolis. Two years later in 338 BC, Philip gave his son a commanding post among the senior gener...