Alexander the great crucified two thousand defeated soldiers and sold thirty thousand into slavery (Doc C). Alexander the great was born in 356 B.C.E and he was taught by a Greek philosopher, Aristotle (BGE). Alexander's father was assassinated in 336 B.C.E and Alexander took over at the age of twenty (BGE). He used his military skills to conquer most of the known world until he died in 323 B.C.E, and his empire soon followed the same fate (BGE). Was Alexander the Great great? He was not great because he didn’t show concern for others, leadership, or intelligence. Alexander the Great was not the best because of his mass amounts of murder, not much care for his soldiers, and his poor ability to lead. The first reason Alexander the Great is not amazing because of the mass amount of murder he committed. One example is during the battle at Tyre, once Alexander’s army broke into the city they went on a ferocious killing spree (Doc C). Alexander had ordered anyone that was not inside the temple to be slain and he killed seven thousand Tyrians. (Doc C). Once they had pillaged and burned the city, they sold the thirty thousand survivors into slavery and then they crucified two thousand defeated soldiers of military age (Doc C). Crucifying people that gave up or that had hid in the …show more content…
“Finally, at the Indus River in western India, Alexander was stopped - not by an enemy, but by his own army, which refused to go further” (BGE). Also after they conquered a place that is now Pakistan, some people didn’t go back with Alexander (Doc F). When Alexander was pushing into India and his own army stopped him that situation shows that they didn’t have enough trust to follow him any further. Also after they took over the place that is now Pakistan some of his troops didn’t go back. This shows that they might not have had any more trust in Alexander, or they thought he was getting too
By this I mean that his empire only held together for ten years after his death (Doc E). A great conqueror would want his empire to go down in history as the best, but Alexander did not even tell the people who would rule after he died. His grand empire took up a great chunk of his life to build and not caring what happened after his death shows that he was not concerned about what happened to others after his death. In the background essay, it says that, “For reasons that are unclear, he [Alexander] had not named an heir. After much fighting, Alexander’s generals split up the land.
Alexander’s military brilliance was unquestionable. He was a leader invincible in both, siege warfare and set battles. In addition to that, his intelligence and communications skills were immaculate. The Roman historian Arrian, in his account Alexander Puts Down a Mutiny, explains Alexander’s ability of communication and leadership skills, “[M]arching out from a country too poor to maintain you decently, [I] laid open for you at a blow, and in spite of Persia’s naval supremacy, the gates of the Hellespont. My cavalry crushed the satraps of Darius, and I added all Ionia and Aeolia, the two Phrygias and Lydia to your empire….
Despite Alexander not being politically great, society remembers him as great because of his military prowess
Alexander met his first fierce enemy at the Granicus River, he used tactics like Phalanx and siege warfare to win battles. He and his army travelled around 7000 miles from Macedonia to Egypt and to the Hynapses River in India. Alexander was a genius when it came to war tactics such as when he and his army needed to cross the Hydaspes River without losing many of his troops. So he devised a plan to go up and down the river making noise that sounded like he was preparing for an attack but wouldn’t, but when he finally did attack the enemy had left their guard down making it an easy victory. (Doc A)
Without their trust, Alexander would not have achieved as much as he did. These examples show that Alexander was great because they provided insight into what Alexander achieved. He had to work hard to gain the people’s trust. It all paid off when he was able to say that he was the greatest leader of his time. Today, everyone wants a trustworthy leader.
He had very high standards at a very young age and surpassed those standards instantaneously (“Alexander the Great Biography”). One can infer that many looked up to Alexander and respected him. God believes that everyone is created equal; no matter if one is a slave, or a pawn, or a king, they are all equal in the eyes of God. However, when the time came, both of these people died.
The people who were conquered believe that he was brutal and relentless. Based on the information, Alexander was a great military leader and a great king. In the first part of document A, it takes the conquerors perspective of how great Alexander was. It states that he treated some of the rebels with compassion.
(Doc. B). This empire had not messed with him or affected him conquering land, but Alexander saw an opportunity and jumped at it first chance he saw. Alexander did not think about the negative affect that was created by him conquering all this land, he just saw the opportunity to become more powerful, and make his empire one of the biggest. He wanted to set a legacy for himself, and did not care about how everyone else was
(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. Alexander won many battles in the east by using his military genius resulting in capturing land for Greece. By the time Alexander was 30, he had conquered over 2,000,000 square miles of land spanning on 3
Alexander The Great’s title of “The Great” was not an exaggeration. To earn the title of “The Great”, you must've done some extremely good things as your reign as a king, queen, or emperor. Alexander The Great did many great and powerful things during his lifetime. He established an extremely powerful military, and he knew how to strategically conquer land, and he was interested in turning this conquered land into powerful areas.
He was known and still is known as Alexander the Great, till today. To say, Alexander’s empire was 2,000,000 square miles (Document E) after his death and it took him 11 years (Document E) to build his empire (took so much time). Unfortunately, his empire held together only for 10 years (Document E) after his death, which was a very short time. As we know, he was a very intelligent military leader.
(Green, document C). Alexander may have just destroyed a city for his empire, but he showed concern by sparing the lives of those who took refuge. This proves that Alexander shows concern because the least he could do in the situation was make sure the victims were okay, and he did that. He spared the lives of the victims who took refuge. Clearly, there are reasons Alexander could be considered not great, but he shows outstanding qualities that prove
He figured out that he did not have to go through the whole army to gather a victory, but that he had to go through a small portion of them and have the leader of the empire surrender to him. Alexander continued conquering other empires until he was in control of the largest and strongest empire in
Alexander also didn’t think of the future of his people because he hadn’t even thought of the idea of leaving someone to take over his empire after he died, displaying his lack of concern for others and political
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