More handpicked essays just for you.
Guided essay on how great was alexander the great
Alexander, the Great: Strength, weakness and contributions
Guided essay on how great was alexander the great
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Guided essay on how great was alexander the great
Countless historians and other scholars believe Alexander the Great really was great. Although, a number of historians think the exact opposite. There is a great deal of evidence to support both thoughts. I firmly believe that Alexander was in fact, great. He deserves the title. To begin with, Alexander was well educated as a child. From a young age, he was well-purposed and remarkably observant. In fact, he was able to train a horse no other man could. Alexander used his observant manner to do so. At the ripe age of sixteen Alexander managed to defeat Maedi while his father was away taking care of important business. He was actually the first to charge Thebans' band in the Battle of Chaeronea. At the youthful age of 20, Alexander became King.
Alexander the Great has been considered for centuries as a military genius and influenced conquerors such as Hannibal the Carthaginian, the Romans Pompey, Caesar and Napoleon. Although, he inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army, Alexander was capable to display his leadership and military capabilities. In 338 B.C., his father, King Phillip II, gave Alexander a commanding post among the senior generals as the Ma...
The first matter to consider is what constitutes “greatness”. There are no set standards no checklist, to apply to a person, to determine it they are “great.” The simplest way that I could conceive to decide whether this title should apply to Alexander was to determine if he was, in some way, superior to the rulers that came before or after his reign. The most obvious place for me to start my consideration is with Alexander’s vast accomplishments as a conquerer.
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.
Alexander the Great, a fitting name given to a man that achieved everything he set out to do. Alexander was the definition of a great king. He showed his ruthlessness when needed, but was committed on uniting man for the greater good. His leadership, military tactics, and character could not be questioned and the legacy he left behind is the reason Alexander is “great”.
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.
Alexander I was a ruler who was thrust into power prior to accepting the fact he was to rule Russia. Deciding to side with a coup attempt which left his father Paul I murdered and him crowned in 1801, Alexander had to battle his own government to take full control. Then comes Napoleon Bonaparte and France realizing Europe is not big enough for the both and decides to form an alliance after defeating Russia in battle. Was Alexander I a great leader who felt it possible to dethrone Napoleon and free Europe and Russia from tyranny? Without Napoleon, there is no Alexander I but without Alexander
Alexander didn’t show any of these characteristics, therefore he doesn’t deserve the title of “great”. The first reason why Alexander lll wasn’t great is because he didn’t show concern for others. In document B it states “Porus’ elephants were now boxed in, and the damage inflicted by them fell on friend no less than foe, with men trampled under as the beast twisted and turned. In document E it states “Years that it took Alexander to build his empire-11 Years that Alexander’s empire held together after his death-10” Alexander the “great” doesn’t show any intelligence because he forgot to make a will with an heir for his empire leaving it confused and aggressive because no one knew who was going to rule.
The son of Philip II, Alexander the Great, will become the conqueror of the western world. Alexander received the Macedonian empire when his father passed, he was only twenty at the time. As soon as he had the power of the Macedonian army, several lightning fast campaigns led them into the west and north. Next, he compelled the city-states that rebelled against the League of Corinth. This action demonstrated how Alexander punished disloyalty [Martin 244]. Alexander was able to keep his rule on the territories he conquered by rewarded the cities who recognized his powers and punished the individuals that betrayed his trust or ambitions. The power he possessed depended on his superior force and his unwillingly desire to use it [Martin 245]. The
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.”
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
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...
Few historical figures stand out in the same degree as that of Alexander the Great. He was a warrior by 16, a commander at age 18, and was crowned King of Macedon by the time he was 20 years old. He did things in his lifetime that others could only dream about. Alexander single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in just over a decade. There were many attributes that made Alexander “Great.” He was a brilliant strategist and an inspired leader; he led by example and was a conqueror at heart. In looking at his early childhood, accession to the throne, conquests, marriage, and death one can see why Alexander the Great is revered in historical contexts as one of the greatest figures of all time.
Alexander the Great is undoubtedly one of the most famous leaders and Kings in our history. This one man miraculously led his armies into countless battles and created an empire nearly as large as the Roman Empire. Men and women all over the world have clearly heard of the amazing things that Alexander accomplished in his times; however, the question of whether his deeds were heroic or villainous still remains. To answer this question, Alexander the Great was unmistakably a villain.
Does Alexander The Great deserve his title as the great? Some historians say yes, and some historians say no. This is a highly debated topic even today. I feel that Alexander did deserve his title as the great. Sure he may have some flaws but who doesn't? There is nobody that has ever lived that has been perfect. Overall he was an astonishing person. I felt he deserved his title because he was a war genius, he had extended his empire, and he left a legacy on generations after his death. Even though it is possible to find flaws in the God like figure, his achievements and legacy weighs to heavily on our view of him today; enough to the point where we can not challenge his greatness.
There are many leaders in the world, but a great ruler is passionate, honorable and one who can inspire even in the most hopeless circumstances. Alexander the Great was a great ruler. Alexander the Great was a ruler that was not only inspiring, but he was fearless, smart, bold and courageous. Alexander the Great inspired his soldiers to crave more. He has inspired people since the day he started ruling. What is inspirational about Alexander the Great is that he inspired his troops to the point that they did not question him when they were outnumbered three to one in a battle, they trusted him with their lives and were willing to die for him (Alexander the Great: man behind the legend).