Pros And Cons Of Alexander The Great

117 Words1 Page

Darius had an advantage over Alexander the Great, he had more troops, better resources, and he chose the battle field. Although Darius had the advantage he was not as smart as Alexander. Alexander had good communication with his troops; he planned according, in addition he was well organized before the battled. He did not stray away from his plan he stuck to it. Alexander troops were heavily armed they moved in formation, and they were shield with their long spears they stayed close together and moved in formation. In addition he did not have all his troops engaged in the battle at once he planned an awesome attack strategy that won him and his troops the war.

Show More
Related

  • Alexander’s Vast Accomplishments as a Conquerer

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alexander began his military campaign and his rule much where his father left off. Whether or not it was his aim, this created a sense of normality for the men that was part of his father’s regime. Alexander’s position as a warrior-king who stood side-by-side among his men also served to create respect among his peers. Gradually, as Alexander conquered more Persian land, he began to adopt the policies of Persian rulers. Alexander’s change in policy extended beyond just political roles, he gave consideration to the local gods in many of the lands that he conquered. Eventually, Alexander brought people in from the conquered nations to serve under him.

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great DBQ

    458 Words  | 1 Pages

    Alexander was Great because of his leadership. When Alexander went into battle, he used lots of complicated strategies to win. Due to the teachings of Aristotle, he was a force to reckoned with. One example comes from Doc B.The battle was set in India, against a king named Porus. He had more than 30 elephants under his control. The one thing that separated them was a shallow river. The document tells us that he would “Take his cavalry to various positions along the river bank where he would create a clamor… This went on for quite a time until Porus no longer reacted” Alexander used great strategy to outsmart his enemy.

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great Manipulation

    1479 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alexander the Great was an unmatched General and Strategist. In a battle of the minds he would somewhat always prevail. There are even countries and empires which Alexander the Great has conquered and beat, where he did not lose a single battle or suffer a single defeat. Talk about flawless victory, battles in places such as Syria and Egypt were a mismatch for the infallible Alexander the Great. Like a chess master, Alexander the Great is capable of thinking several steps ahead of his opponents. At the battles of Gaugamela and Hydaspes, “He foresaw precisely the sequence of moves by his own units and the compulsion it would place on his enemies” Even when situations were unsure, Alexander the Great always seemed to know the right course of action

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great Influence

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alexander is now recognized as one of the greatest leaders to ever live. Alexander took the throne at the age of twenty. Alexander’s leadership is one that many leaders try to imitate. The key component in his ability to lead was having the trust of his men . His men trusted in him that he had the best interest not only for them but also for his kingdom as a whole. With this trust in place, Alexander was able to take his men into any city without. Alexander was also not shy of battles. During battles he would mostly lead from the front where he was easily recognizable and a target for the enemies . His bravery set an example for his men, and in return Alexander was always rewarded with a victory. His ruthlessness matched with his tolerance is one of the most ironic yet admirable trait he had. Alexander was known for his ruthless behavior when it came to battles with other kingdoms. He held nothing back and punished all who fought against him . That being said, Alexander rarely would hur...

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great: The Invasion Of Persia

    1091 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alexander’s first major victory was at the Granicus River. In May of 334 BC, Alexander’s army met the Persians in battle and defeated them. Following this victory, Alexander continued his march into Persia, and many towns simply surrendered, including Sardis. After a siege at Halicarnassus which Alexander eventually won, he moved on to meet the Persians again at Issus in November of 333 BC, under the command of Darius III of Persia. The Persian army had an advantage in numbers over Alexander’s, more than 2 to 1; but Alexander, using his ability to anticipate his enemies’ plans and counter them, again soundly defeated the Persians. In the midst of the battle, Darius fled. The

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Alexander The Great

    1509 Words  | 4 Pages

    I choose to do research on this bust because I already am familiar with Alexander’s life and his impact on global history. At first, when I saw the sculpture without reading the description, I had just assumed it was some Roman craftsman making a bust of Alexander’s likeness based upon previous artworks as his reference point. However, upon discovering that Alexander the Great was considered divine in antiquity, I understood only now began to realize just how deep Alexander 's cult and life would be the spark that will help create and define both the Roman and American Empire. Alexander 's bust had the familiar style of a young man with short fiery-hair and had no unique touch on behalf of the craftsman. I doubt there is any death mask or any real record of how Alexander

    Read More

  • The Battles Of The Battle Of Alexander The Great

    2705 Words  | 6 Pages

    ...tle against Darius, had finally defeated him and got rid of the Persian threat. With the assassination of Darius by his own commanders, Alexander was able to continue to move through Asia all the way to Hyphasis River. Had Alexander not won this battle, the Persian confidence would have greatly increased and Alexander’s chances of winning would greatly decrease.

    Read More

  • Loyalty In The Odyssey

    571 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 490 B.C, King Darius made his final push towards Athens. The Athenians were waiting for the Persians to arrive, ready to fight. It seemed crazy for Athens to retaliate against the Persians at this point. Historians still wonder why the Athenians and their 10,000 soldiers stood up to the Persians and their 25,000 soldiers, but this is because of their gallantry. The Athenians valued pride over cowardice.. Athenian men, since childhood, were inspired by tales of the Odyssey, Iliad, etc, and were taught to never turn their back on their country in times of hardships. These books and their upbringing, not only instilled a sense of nationalism, patriotism, and loyalty, but also them strive for fame achievable during war. Although it might have seemed foolish to fight the Persians, the Athenians were intelligent; in fact, they were relying on their strategic intelligence to overcome the difference in their army size. Ultimately, loyalty and the desire for fame inspired the Athenians to take such bold actions. These traits coupled with their intelligence led to the Athenians’ victory.

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great: The Historical Era Of Alexander The Great

    872 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great: Alexander The Great

    1085 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alexander the Great (July 356BC – June 323BC) was King of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon. By the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world. He remained undefeated in battle and is considered one of history’s most successful Military commanders. Historians’ have offered theories which could explain Alexander’s motivation to conquer so much of the known world. Some suggest that Alexander was an idealistic visionary who sought to unite the world, whereas others argued that he was a fascist whose hunger for power drove him. The Ancient Greeks were driven by love of honour (philotimaea) and their desire for greatness. They were competitive, always striving to better one another.

    Read More

  • Why Alexander The Great Is A Villain

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alexander the Great:An Analysis Thesis:Alexander the Great is a villain because Alexander the Great murdered and tortured people for no reason,he also took over cities against their own will. Alexander the Great is a villain because Alexander the Great murdered and tortured many people. This man came to civilizations and Alexander the Great took them under his rule,if one did not follow one were tortured. He also killed people just as a warning that Alexander the Great actually wasn't dead. According to Alexander the not so great Paragraph 3 page 2 “Persians also condemn him for the widespread destruction Alexander the Great is thought to have encouraged to cultural and religious sites throughout the empire.”

    Read More

  • Alexander The Great: Hero Or Villain?

    526 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading the source of “Alexander the Great”, I believe the source material does praise him. Alexander the greats whole motive was to spread Hellenism, the spread of green ideas and traditions throughout the Western Mediterranean and near east. According to the source material provided he ended up accomplishing just that throughout all his conquests. Alexander the great had a very strong personality which caused all the successor kings to revered to Alexander as their founder, and all minted coins had his image. Alexander was so successful as a leader that the results of his actions caused the green culture to evolve and mix with other cultures.

    Read More

  • Was Alexander The Great Really Great?

    943 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alexander the Great is great because of his remarkable achievement which helped to create a long lasting legacy. Alexander started to build his empire in 334 BCE after taking the new role as the king. It only took eleven years to build an empire that was large and lasted several years. In addition, the empire Alexander created stretched over 2,200,000 square miles becoming bigger than the United States (Alexander’s Empire Doc. A) (Alexander’s Legacy Doc, E). This proves that Alexander the Great is great because although the process was eleven long years to make a strong empire, Alexander wasn’t willing to give up and

    Read More

  • Does Alexander The Great Deserve His Title

    1820 Words  | 4 Pages

    He had inherited the finest army in the world from his homicidal father Philip II, Alexander also ‘inherited’ Philip’s outstanding Chief-of-Staff, the 64-year-old Parmenion. People say that he was just lucky to be general of an already great army. They also say that without this luck he wouldn't have been noticed for Great War tactics at all. It's easy for someone with everything to be great. Therefore he never made himself great. Also three of Alexander’s four great victories were achieved against the Persians, a nation that today we would be described as a paper tiger. A paper tiger is something that is weaker than it is portrayed. Persia seemed strong yet they were not. Therefore his greatest battles were against weak empires, making his achievements not so heroic after all. He killed millions of people during his lifetime as he spread his empire all through the eastern hemisphere. People who are great are able to expand without killing people or they just don't kill people in the first place. I can not think of many people who are considered great that have killed anyone. Finally, many of Alexander's policies were failures. He had made his generals marry Persian women to integrate the Macedonians and Persians, but once he died many of his successors exiled, banished, or divorced their Persian wives. His attempts to create a unified Macedonian empire ended

    Read More

  • Essay On Alexander The Great

    574 Words  | 2 Pages

    Have you ever wondered why Alexander from Macedonia is called Alexander the Great. According to history, it is because he is the most glorious general in the history who conquered Persia, Greece, Egypt and Babylon in a very inexperienced age. He became the commander of Macedonian armies at age eighteen and the king of Macedonia at age twenty. After six years of preparation, he conquered the great Persian empire. Unfortunately, he died at age thirty-three. He would have conquered many lands if he hadn’t died at a such young age. He was a legend and an icon for great kings like Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, and Pompey. World’s most famous generals tried to compete with him but they couldn’t accomplish. After years, his tomb

    Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Alexander The Great

Open Document