Alexander the Great
ConflictWas Alexander the Great a hero or a villian? Based on the modern and classic views, we can examine the characteristics of Alexander the Great. By doing this, we can decide whether he is really a hero or a villain. Classic viewThe classic view of Alexander the Great disguises his flaws using family history and his culture. People thought of him as a hero. It says in the article "Way Back When" that the people felt bad for him because killing was normal in his family and he was just good at it. They excused his high death counts on the advanced war strategies of the phalanx. Alexander was viewed as a philosopher king, a military genius, and a charismatic and passionate man. He conquered Persia and strived for the unity of mankind. His phalanx was so powerful that he almost always won even though they were outnumbered 10 to 1. People believed that it was not Alexander's fault that he was always drunk because it was part of the culture. Alexander the Great died at the age of 32 and people loved the mystery of wondering what would have happened if he had lived longer.
Modern viewThe modern view of Alexander the Great sheds light on his flaws. During Alexander's pitched battles, he killed to exhaustion. Anyone who rebelled was killed. Families began to commit suicide so they would not be murdered by this horrendous man. Alexander was the Hitler of his era. It states in the article "Climate, agriculture, and terrain instantly explain" that he wanted to perform an ethnic cleanse, the Thebian Holocaust. When he wasn't killing people during battles, he was killing innocent people in their own villages. Alexander was called a shrewd and ruthless plotter, a drunk, and a very harsh man. He enslaved women and children, stole resources while tearing through villages, and was unforgiving to anyone who wronged him in the slightest way. Alexander even killed his best friends, family, and those who surrendered. Alexander the Great died a cold-blooded killer who left more than 250,000 bodies in just 10 years.
|
Group Stance
Alexander the Great was a man who killed thousands of people during his time in power over the Persian Empire. Though young in his time of power, he was very successful at what he did(conquering and killing). Because he was so good at this, his empire became very strong and large(in land area). All of this success went to his head and made him very arrogant. He used his knowledge to attack other places with new and advanced tactics that they had never before been exposed to. This made him an excellent military leader. In the article "Most contemporary classical," it tells of five categories for Alexander's killings. Those five categories are: battlefield, civillians, tribes and villagers, crazed sprees and adventures, and casual extermination of family and friends. Together we view Alexander as a villain much more than a hero. A hero would not kill all of those people simply to propell his own success. A villian steps on the toes of those closest to them, just as Alexander did by killing his friends and family (the only ones who helped him to the power he held).
Opposite of Group Stance
We think that Alexander was more of a villain than a hero, but some people believe that he was a true hero. These people excused his behavior on the culture. They said that being drunk was normal during that time period, and that it was not his fault. People said he was born into a family of killers and that he was good at for that reason. Alexander was seen as a charismatic and passionate philosopher king. In the article "Whatever else he was," it says that Alexander was extremely smart for his time period and he used that knowledge to try to rule the world. He conquered Persia, and expanded the empire to the size of the U.S. Alexander told his people that he wanted unity of mankind, ande the way to reach that was to take over everyone. People saw how wonderful he was at ruling, and they were intrigued by what may have happened if he had not died at the age of 32 years old.
Individual Opinions
I believe that Alexander the Great was actually not great at all. He killed to exhaustion and destroyed everyone and everything in his path. Alexander may have been very intelligent, but he used his smarts to do wrong. He outsmarted people with tactics they had never seen and deceived them into believing that he wanted what was best for his people. We know that he truly did not want the best for them because in the articles it states that he killed his own men, best friends, and family. In the article "Killer of Friends," it says that his friends were the ones who saved him a supported him throughout the years, but that he killed them easily after a slight infraction againt him. People may have dismissed his killing sprees because it was family's history and he was just good at it, but I think that really enjoyed the power he felt when he exterminated about 250,000 people in only ten years. Someone cannot be called a hero when they kill so many with so much ease. Alexander is obviously more of a villain than a hero.
Katherine-
In my opinion Alexander the Great was nothing more than a mass killer. How can a man be called great when he spent his entire life killing people? I believe he was a major villain whose favorite past time was to murder innocent people. Just because he was good at killing didn't mean he had to kill. He was a coward in that he killed those who could not defend themselves. He killed women and children and was known to go on random killing sprees. Alexander the Great, no more like Alexander the terrible.
Lauren-
In my eyes Alexander the Great (King of Macedonia) is a rutheless killer. He is a villian-like character who tried to use tactics such as ethnic cleansing and killing to exhaustion to whipe out people of other tribes, villages and even the people he loved in order to reach a state he called 'The State of Zero'. Growing up, Alexander was faced with many tough struggles within his family. Both his mother and father were killers, giving the young Alexander insight into the lifestyle in which he would one day partake in. Though this might have contributed to his mindset of a cold blooded killer, I believe that he could have changed as a young adult into a figure not so closely compared to Hitler. Not even giving mercy to his friends, Alexander's empire grew bigger and bigger as each battle took place. At its largest point, the Persian empire was located on three continents: Europe, Africa, and Asia (in total larger than the U.S.). Alexander was a very intelligent man and he used this to his advantage. He often outsmarted people by using tactics they had never seen. Instead of using his knowledge to benefit mankind, Alexander used it to destroy mankind which is why, in my mind, he is deemed a villain instead of a hero.
Legacy
School systems should redirect what the textbooks say, in classical format, of Alexander the Great to the modern view. They should display the truth and the flaws that he had to make him more relatable. The classic view makes Alexander seem nearly perfect, even though he committed crimes almost on a daily basis. He killed 50 to 100 thousand Persians in just a one day in the Battle of Issus. Students should not be taught that killing makes someone great or that someone's actions should be excused becaused of the culture and their family history. Anyone has the power to overcome bad situations and become someone everyone looks up to, and that is the opposite of what is being taught from the life of Alexander.
Learn more:
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/map-alexander-the-great.html
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14224/Alexander-the-Great
