Alexander the Great Essay 9

black lovage the owing(p) black lovage the Great was a nance and inhibitor. He is unremarkably give earred to as the most the amend way attracter of whole time. What is it that makes him such a powerful leader? What has he accomplished that has make him so significant? Were his accomplishments positive or negative? These are entirely questions that when combine as 1 create a debate that has been going on for decades. in that respect are those who admire black lovages host achievements and ability to compartmentalize come on the largest empire the world has expectn. Then in that location are those who perceive him as a selfish, cruel madman with drinking problems.This study will outline the assorted steads interpreted on Alexander and the question as to what his significance/influence was and whether it was grave or bad. Alexander the Great was the son of Phillip II, king of Macedonia. Phillip had always done much to pass water him for a armed forces and po litical futurity (Lewis 48). Alexander served as a regent(postnominal) for his father at the young get on with of 16 for the start of his military career. afterwards the assassination of his father he obtained the grass in 336 B. C. E. and leader of the League of Corinth. In 335 B. C.E he crushed Macedonias borders and destroyed the city of Thebes. This caused Athens to total the league with no fight. 334 B. C. E. was the year of his root great victory, which opened Asia Minor to victory. He then, in 333, met the Persian King for the starting time time and caused him to flee by charging blush though Alexander was outnumbered. This was the start out of the decision for Persia. Alexander went on and in his 13 year reign was conquering the Mediterranean, forming untested cities, and producing an empire touching on 3 continents and encompassing 2 million sq miles (OBrien 44). such work is something one should be reportlistic of and many throw that conquering every of Pe rsia in such a absolutely amount of time is Alexander the Greats biggest accomplishment. Balcer on the face of it agrees with that stating that Alexander succeeded in forming the largest western empire of the ancient world and removing Persian treatment in Greek affairs (Balcer 121-122). Sacks apparently agrees as well saying that his headspring achievement was the conquest of the empire of Persia,(14).The locating of many scholars is that Alexander authentically was the superior leader and through the conquering he undertook he achieved many great things. This is the impression of the debate in which scholars find Alexanders significance to be a positive thing. It is argued he was a military genius with iron will and absolute ambition, (OBrien 45). pupil Edmund Burke clearly supports this idea in saying that in his price of admission to the Macedonian throne his foundation of Alexandria, conquest of the Persian Empire and his strategic and tactical genius makes him a l egend (Burke 67).He was not the barely scholar to refer to him as a legend for a professor at Boise affirm notes that Alexander exhibited tremendous bravery, didnt permit a wound stop him, neer lost a battle, had those around him rely he was invincible, and knew and loved his men. Combining all these factors created an army that could not be halt and its accomplishments outdid anything that had been seen yet. Alexander and his troops had become a legend, (Knox). Alexander had also been seen as the drive for successfully bed cover Greek polish that still exists today.Oriental and Greek cultures commix and flourished as a result of the Empire, making Greek culture his true bequest (Balcer 124). The Hellenistic Era took place right after Alexanders stopping point and he is said to be the one who ushered this fascinating era. (OBrien 46). The scholars are right, Alexander genuinely is a legend for he was the finest orbit commander of the ancient world and re do the use of t he ancient world (Sacks 14). Not rightful(prenominal) anyone can achieve such success, in that location seems to be something extraordinary nigh this man.Yet, not everyone agrees that he was so extraordinary. Yes, he did carve out the largest empire and at an amazingly rapid pace but his aims and ambitions were different than spreading Hellenism throughout the western Mediterranean and near the east. He was a confident man who completely wanted to conquer for self-pleasure. Alexander is the reason that corruption and defalcation were treated with casualness during this time. His pleasure was when his peoples were fast(a) to him and that was all that was necessary for his approval.It was because of him that Macedonia lost its manpower through the strenuous battles he unendingly fought. He left(a) it as a weakened kingdom. His empire is given so much credit but it was only based on rapid military conquest and died right after his close (Stoneman 92-94). It is believed that Alexander conquered to rule, not to blend cultures. expectant drinking led to disastrous incidents and hastened his death. An deterrent example of such a disaster was the burn down down of Persepolis in a intoxicated revel. This is not an attribute of a good leader.He also lacked long-range cooking and neglected his kingdoms future by severe himself in warfare while he delayed fathering a royal successor. His selfishness is turn up by his act of casually cleanup spot any threats to the throne at the beginning of his reign (Sacks 15). Those who see Alexander in a negative manner plainly have quite strong opinions about it. They see him as more of a madman than the most powerful leader. It is flourishing to see where they get their assumptions from for they look at the bloodshed part of Alexanders reign.Instead of focusing on the rarified ability he had to conquer so successfully the use the old journals and new(prenominal) texts used to learn about Alexander and dont see olden the drunken stories and jump to the negative side of his actions to make them cruel. Those who make assumptions about him universe the greatest military leader of all time look at the historical records we have of them and analyze his tactics realizing they really are extraordinary. No other person has conquered so much, so fast and left such a legacy.I agree with those who see him as a importantly positive influence so its easier to see where they are coming from. I look at the whole picture his achievements were unlike anyone elses in history and as a King he was only trying to do the better for his country. He deserves the credit he has received for spreading Greek culture there is no other way it would have happened. Scholar Burke put it perfectly when in his article he states, when mention is made of a man of action and genius, there is perhaps no one of the ancients who so quickly comes to mind as Alexander the Great (Burke 67).