pothos.org

hey people. I am taking a test about Alexander the Great and i need to find out why Alexander deserves the title the Great or if he shouldn't. Please reply. Thanks for the help!Melony

Perhaps you should do some reading and come to your own conclusions. I began reading about and studying about Alexander when I was 16 and from then on I was hooked. Truly one of the world's most fascinating characters.

Yes, he deserves the title more than any other
man!
Alexander is without peer in history, no man has
had so much success in military campaigns in
so short a time! Alexander carved out the largest
empire in world history(at that time) before he
died at age 32. Caesar was an old man by
comparison(and Rome was already a world
power before Caesar began his career).
Hannibal had much success but ultimately lost
his war against Rome! Hannibal and Caesar
also led from the rear, Alexander led from the
front! Although Alexander was a military dictator
and killed many thousands and enslaved many
thousands more, you cannot judge him by
modern standards of morality(Christian or
modern humanist) because those standards
did not exist at that time!
Unlike other conquerors like the Spanish
conquistadors, Alexander built a new world, new
cities, new learning institutions...Greek culture
spread all across the world...he paved the way
for both Rome and the Christian religion.
Yes, he was great. to deny that is absurd! Are you a high school or college student?

This question crops up a lot. LetGÇÖs knock it on the head, shall we. Take a quick look at John KeeganGÇÖs words on the issue. The following opens his account of Alexander in his book GÇÿThe Mask Of CommandGÇÖ, where he contrasts different modes of generalship as evinced by Alexander, Wellington, Hitler and Grant.GÇ£Imagine a Highland Napoleon. Imagine a Bonny Prince Charlie with European ambitions who, having won back Scotland from King George II, sets off at the head of his clans not just to conquer England - a mere preliminary - but to cross the channel, to meet and beat the French army on the Somme, then journey south into Spain to besiege and subdue its principal fortresses, return north to challenge the Holy Roman Emperor, twice confront and defeat him at the head of his forces, seize his crown, burn his capital, bury his corpse and finally depart eastward to cross swords with the Tsar of Russia or the Sultan of Turkey.GÇ£Imagine all this compressed into, say, the years 1745 - 56, between the princelingGÇÖs twenty second and thirty third birthdays. Imagine on his death, at the age of thirty two, the crowns of Europe shared between his followers - Lord George Murray ruling in Madrid, the Duke of Perth in Paris, Lord Elcho in Vienna, John Roy Stewart in Berlin, Cameron of Lochiel in Warsaw, a gaggle of tartaned chieftains braying for whiskey in the small courts of south Germany, and London garrisoned by a crew of bare kneed highlanders.GÇ£Finally, imagine most of this Jacobite empire enduring into the nineteenth century, parts of it into the twentieth, and its last fragment into the twenty first.GÇ£Thus is it possible to grasp how extraordinary was the career of Alexander the Great. The distances and obstacles of the enterprise defeat the imagination - and they have, indeed, no parallel in any reality except that of AlexanderGÇÖs own life. The world has, of course, known conquerors of extraordinary ambition in its time: Attila the Hun whose horsemen rode from Central Asia to the gates of Rome in the fifth century; the Arab successors of Mahomet turned back into Spain by defeat on the banks of the Loire in the eighth century; and the sons of Genghis Khan, whose Mongols menaced Venice and Vienna in the thirteenth. Napoleon, a devotee of the Alexanderr epic, came close to re-enacting it in the years between Rivoli, 1797, and Moscow, 1812, as again did Hitler in whom some gobbet of classical learning also nourished an admiration for Alexander. His orgy of vic

His orgy of victory was, of course, even more telescoped in time than NapoleonGÇÖs, who in turn gave battle more often than ever Alexander did.GÇ£Yet the achievements of none of these earth shakers quite match those of the original. Napoleon and Hitler scarcely ventured beyond their own continent. Attila, the Arabs and the Mongols broke the boundaries of Asia but only scratched the heartland of Europe. Alexander, by contrast, first made himself master of the Greek world, then translated himself to another, the Persian Empire, and finally ventured into a third in India. At his death in June 323BC, he had subdued the largest tract of the earthGÇÖs surface ever to be conquered by a single individual - Genghis KhanGÇÖs shortlived empire excepted - and ruled as overlord, emperor and king from mount Olympus to the Himalaya.GÇ¥End Quote.Bear in mind that Keegan is writing of Alexander only as a conqueror. He makes no mention of the lasting and profound cultural shifts brought about by his force of will. He says nothing of how the Macedonian opened the corridors between east and west. Nor does he mention that Alexander was the first - indeed, until recent history the only - conqueror to practice policies of inclusion rather than exclusion with natives subdued by his campaigns. Does he deserve the tag of GÇÿGreatGÇÖ? If you are to judge him by the standards of virtually any culture or time, very few would have doubts about it. And those that objected would tend to do so on the basis that Alexander was a fighter not a peacemaker. ItGÇÖs worth remembering, however, that all rulers from long before AlexanderGÇÖs time until long after fall into the same category. As such, it would be na+»ve to castigate him on that basis. He stands alone. And he was Great.Laters. Aengus.

Hello!
Thanks for your reply to my guestion. I am a ninth grader in high school. I am asking because i have an thesis essay test this week and i am supposed to get other people's opinions while reading other books to make up my own opinion. Thank you for your reply and have a very Merry Christmas.
Melony

Your question is a valid one... how does one aquire the title such as the "Great" , there were several "greats" throughout history...Alfred, Cyrus, Pompey just to name a few, and every case they received that moniker due to their military feats. If then it is through military conquest....on military tactis, strategy, then clearly, Alexander was great. Not only was he a military genius in many regards, but as a leader of men, as an organizer, he was without peer either in ancient times or in modern, why else do many modern militarys study him? Not only were his military conquests the stuff that more than 2000 years of ledgend have been made of, what about his spreading Greek culture throughout the, then known world...almost every culture have stories regarding the near "mythic" Alexander. In fact he also made it into the book of Daniel. Say what you will regarding Alexander...either you think he was merely another of history's butchers, or he truly was one of history's most remarkable personalities.