Diodorus and Plutarch portray Alexander with extreme amounts of arrogance because of his extravagant ideas and goals, but in Arrian’s pieces, Alexander is shown as a barbarian because of his inheritance of Persian culture. Diodorus, and Plutarch make Alexander seem very arrogant in their writing because of his impossible goals and plans. Alexander was originally Macedonian, but over the years, he adopted many different cultures. During Alexander’s rule, he conquered many nations and won many battles. He was very confident in himself. Additionally, it is clear that historians wished to highlight his goal to unite the world and create one culture. In Plutarch’s The Mixing of Barbarians and Greeks, Plutarch explains Alexander’s goal to unify …show more content…
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
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 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.
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
Plutarch was a prominent Greek biographer who was born in the small town of Chaeronea in 46 AD and died in 120 AD. His most recognized piece of writing was the Livesof Noble Grecians and Romanoes which first published in 1579. Since Lives was written in Plutarch’s native tongue Greek, it was later translated into French by Jacques Amyot of Melun. Amyot’s French translation was then translated into English by Sir Thomas North. According to Geoffrey Bullough’s Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Sir Thomas North’s translated version of Plutarch’s Lives of Noble Grecians and Romanoes is where Shakespeare draws most of his information from for his famous tragedy Julius Caesar. (Bullough 12)
Alexander was a smart man and there was one main person to thank for that, his father. Philip II, knowing that someday his son would be a powerful figure arranged for none other than Aristotle to be Alexander’s tutor. Alexander grew to love his tutor almost as much as his father. Alexander’s favorite book was the Iliad by Homer, it was a story about some of the things he hoped to do when he got older, such as fight in wars. As a youth Alexander also enjoyed hunting and martial arts. Alexander feared that by the time he became king there would be nothing left for him to conquer.
Alexander the great is known as one of the most ruthless and greatest leaders the world has ever seen. In less than ten years, Alexander conquered cities from Greece all the way to modern day India. Not only did he defeat and conquer cities throughout the known world, but Alexander would also leave his mark spreading and influencing Greek society wherever he went. His leadership and conquests united the East and the West as a whole like no one up to that point had done before. His impact on culture and society when meshing his Greek background with his conquered cities became something truly unique. In 323 B.C. when Alexander passed away, he not only left behind a vast thriving empire, but also a legacy that would be remembered throughout history.
...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.
Alexander the Great is a villain because he killed many people. He was labelled as a villain because he killed tons of innocent people that didn’t deserve it. According to A hero’s hero- alexander and achilles, “Here was a man, who walked in flesh and blood, a man who went on to conquer the whole world before he was thirty-two”(1). This proves he is a villain because it states that he would walk in flesh and blood just to get what he wants if it was for the better or for the worse and also a true leader would not kill innocent people just to get what he wanted even if it did not have a good impact. According to the John Maxwell Company, “Alexander
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.
Plutarch’s Life of Alexander speaks of Alexander’s father telling him “my son, seek thee out a kingdom equal to thyself; Macedonia has not room for thee” (Plutarch, 6.1). Aristotle tutored Alexander where he encouraged his ambition, and taught him that bravery in a man was an admirable quality. Alexander’s birth was associated with great signs; Plutarch writes “Alexander was born the sixth of Hecatombeon … the same day that the temple of Diana was burnt while its mistress was absent, assisting at the birth of Alexander” (Plutarch, Lives).
He was a heavy drinker of wine and when he drank, he became very aggressive with an uncontrollable temper. These drunken states led to irrational decisions and questionable events [Foner and Garraty]. The obsession he had with constructing a name for himself led him to not being able to accept criticism. When he is confronted with criticism, he becomes spiteful, ill-mannered and harsh. Alexander was also known to have an erratic temper with impassioned outbursts. These outbursts could lead to the most tragic outcomes. For example, Alexander murdered Cleitus during a drunken rage outburst
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.”
“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.
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...
But, in reality, his countless massacres of innocents quickly wash over that farcical statement; he was also the one that brought upon the fall of his own empire. Alexander murdered his most trusted general, Parmenio, after he suggested that Alexander focused on strengthening his empire instead of conquering more land. ( ). Alexander wouldn’t even take Parmenio’s suggestion, the very one that could save his empire, and killed him just because he didn’t favor it. A ruler that doesn’t accept negative feedback is a true tyrant. Although not a tyrant, Alexander was on the edge of becoming one. Alexander did not fortify his empire, thus, it fell apart shortly after his death. (Dr. Ellis L., Alexander the Great: After Alexander, europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/14.shtml). Although Alexander was renowned for his sophisticated military tactics, he lacked the diplomatic and political skills to actually rule his land. As Alexander’s empire was only held together by himself, and because he named no heir, he brought upon the end of his empire, launching its inhabitants into civil war. A ruler should not only be judged by his military power but also, if not mostly, their political and diplomatic