As well as fighting for Ithaca as a good deed, Ody did many more and went above and beyond to fulfill these deeds. For example, Ody risked his own life to save his men from Circe. He did not know what he would be coming face to face with, but from what Eurylochus had told Ody and the crew as he ran back, it was a terrible sight and he could barely tell it because he was so frightened. This proved that Ody was an epic hero because Ody was going to stop at nothing to save his crew, no matter what challenge he was about to face. As Ody tried to make it home, he had to travel to many different places until he could finally reach Itaca.
Alexander the great did spread greek culture and was very brave. Alexander the great was indeed brave and brilliant when it comes to military things but was everyone that called him great heros themselves. Some people that called him great do not think anything bad of him because they were just as ruthless and bloodthirsty as he was. Alexander and his men were bloodthirsty and ruthless just like the rest of his men. The fact that Alexander’s army went off on killing sprees during their downtime, he abandoned his kingdom, and he lied and took advantage of his people is why Alexander the Great is a villain.
Temple defines heroic virtue as “arising from some great and native excellency of temper or genius transcending the common race of mankind in wisdom, goodness, and fortitude.” Temple’s definition of the virtues of a hero were deemed credible during his time, and provide basis to the argument I am providing to vilify Alexander the Great. Taking Temple’s definition apart piece by piece, he claims that a hero’s “transcendent virtue and goodness” will benefit all of mankind in the institutions of “law, orders, and governments” and will be beneficial to a “civil society.” Temple also notes that fortitude was the “operation of the defense” of the hero’s own nation, and to “civilize barbaric people, and to relieve them from other cruelties and oppressions.” With Temples definitions clearly defined, one can argue that Alexander the Great is not the heroic character much of history claims him to be. Alexander did in fact conquer other ‘barbaric individuals’, with the intent of ‘Greekizing’ these individuals. However, Alexander instituted no orders and no governmental capacity in the areas he conquered, using his own appointed governors to allow Alexander to rule an imperialized empire. One of the most important points in Temple’s definition of the hero is that he must be one who is “constructive rather than destructive” which Alexander was the latter of the two.
During his life, did Alexander show enough leadership, courage, and concern for others to be considered great? By these measures, Alexander was great for at least three reasons: military genius, inspiring leader, and spread of Greek cultures. First of all, one reason that Alexander was great was because he was a military genius. He was a genius because he conquered so much land and did not stop. In document B it states, “That Alexander made a plan to trick Porus by acting like he was going over the river by making
Alexander focused more and conquering land than developing the land. Alexander died, the empire fell apart making the war unnecessary. Alexander could convince his men to do the craziest of things “Yet he never developed a successor.” (Alexander The Not So Great 4) When he died, the people of his empire went into a 50 battle for control ultimately destroying the empire. Alexander was a villain because he was a terrible planner, he only cared about war, and he killed of any potential future leader from his kingdom. Some people say Alexander was a hero because he is great at conquering land.
I had to kill him to save everyone. I loved him, but Rome’s well being was more important to me than Caesar’s life. Q: Brutus, what swayed you the most to join Cassius’ plan? A: The thing that swayed me the most was the letters from the people of Rome that my servant found. Their pleading made me really think about what needed to be done.
Alexander created a legacy for himself that stood the test of time. He made men believe he was a god and he believed it himself. It was due to accomplishing tasks no other great leader had done before him. Alexander expanded his empire further east than any before him. He crossed deserts that seemed uncrossable and he surpassed all before him in military greatness.
Was Julius Caesar a hero or a villain? Was he greedy for land and money or was he just trying to help the Roman Empire? I believe Julius Caesar was a hero and a reformer because of all the astonishing things he did to help the citizens of the Roman Empire. First of all, Julius Caesar was an unbelievable military leader and emperor. By conquering most, if not all, the Mediterranean Sea basin, he strengthened and expanded the empire.
Alexander the Great is an important figure in my opinion, even though he had very short reign, he accomplished many things which other kings didn’t. By leading his people, Alexander created one of the biggest empires in the world, while remaining undefeated in battle. He first started with the destruction of Thebes, after hearing false reports of the death of Alexander, the people of Thebes decided to revolt against the Macedonian garrison. However they were wrong, Alexander was alive and because of their betrayal he destroyed the city apart from the house of Pindar, killed the soldiers, took the women and children. He did this to show people what would happen if they rebelled against him.
I would also consider Brutus a traitor when he lied to his fellow citizens. he lied to them in order to kill Caesar butt from seeing this part one might believe Brutus is a traitor. this is due to the fact that even though he was on this side of Rome and her people, Brutus left them out thus betraying his own people and leaving him a betrayer. finally one might suspect brutus to be a traitor killing the Emperor. surely killing one 's King means they 're a betrayer right?