Alexander the Great Versus Caesar: Compare and Contrast Essay

It is often said that history is filled with “what ifs”. What if this was never discovered? What if this land was never conquered? What if this leader never ruled? There are three people who I think if they had not existed, or accomplished what they did, would have changed Western civilization as we know it today. The three people I am going to discuss are Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Constantine. The achievements of these three great rulers helped shape Western civilization as we know it and without them, history would be altered in a very bad way.

Alexander the Great’s actions and decisions significantly impacted the world during his time, ultimately leaving behind a legacy that can be affiliated with the Westernization of the globe. He helped bring the Western civilization, which included the scientific and liberal thinking of the Greeks to much of the rest of the world. He introduced the study of science to the nations and he is also considered one of the most successful military commanders in history. His contribution to science and math helped him discover different things and shaped Western civilization. The men in his army, families, historians, philosophers, poets, scientists, and others traveling with Alexander carried their Western customs with them and he made sure to place Greek and Macedonian people in charge of his conquests along the way. Many people fail to realize that Alexander has had a definite effect on us today. If it wasn’t for his achievements the world as we know it would not be as advanced as it is today.

Julius Caesar was another great ruler whose achievements and accomplishments helped Western civilization as we know it today. Some consider him the greatest politician ever. Caesar was a great military mind and also laid the framework for the Roman Republic. Many leaders have tried to immolate Julius Caesar. He created the Julian calendar which was superseded by the Gregorian calendar. Some orthodox churches however still utilize the Julian calendar. Caesar was a skilled and charismatic military leader as well. He used his knowledge to conquer several territories and expand The Roman Empire. His military techniques are still studied today. He helped lay the framework for how we do politics today and how we strategize our military attacks.

The last great ruler who I think helped Western civilization is Constantine. Constantine is best known for being the first Christian Roman Emperor. Constantine played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire. He also stopped the persecution of Christians in his territories. His dynamic yet effective predominance laid the infrastructure of European development. From his humble beginnings to his command of the Roman Empire, to his final days, Constantine’s impact on world history and Christianity has left behind an unforgettable legacy.

The achievements of these men were very important. The way we live today has a lot to do with what these men have achieved. If these accomplishments were not made then the way we live today will be affected in a major way. They have helped shape Western civilization and the way we do things today.

How Alexander The Great Conquered The Persian Empire

Religious Motivations Behind Alexander’s Campaign

The reasons why Alexander decided to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire. Another motivating factor that could have influenced, and motivated Alexander was that he was motivated for religious reasons. As mentioned previously, when the Persians had managed to force their way into Athens, they had razed the Acropolis of Athens which contained very sacred temples to the Greeks. Many of the Greeks were extremely angered at this and there is an example within Alexander’s conquest that could prove that his motivation was for Religious purposes. Alexander arrived in the Persian capital city of Persepolis in 330BC. There was a huge and impressive palace that had previously been built by Darius I, however, when Alexander left the place, the city nor the palace was impressive anymore.

Alexander encouraged and urged on by his men and the people around him, sets fire to the palace of Persepolis and the rest of the city. This action could be viewed as being retaliation for the Persians burning of the sacred Acropolis and shows that Alexander was clearly a pious man who took the burning of the sacred building to heart. His burning of the city of Persepolis reflects how one of his motivations could have been for religious purposes, with the burning of the city of Persepolis, otherwise, this action would have been pointless to him and his path of conquest.

Alexander was a man who worshipped the Gods greatly, sacrificing daily to the Gods and before and after each battle he conducted. He even conducted some religious festivals whilst he was on his conquest of the Persian Empire. Before he crossed the Hellespont, in modern-day referred to as the Dardanelles, a waterway that is the continental border between Europe and Asia, which would have started his conquest, Alexander first decided to go to consult the Oracle at Delphi. The oracle was a ‘person believed to make infallible predictions’(Breslin, McKeown and Groves, 2012) and in ancient times was a priest or priestess who was thought to read and uncover the will of the Gods. When Alexander arrived at Delphi and the oracle was not in business, but Alexander did not give up and called for the Priestess Pythia and even when she refused to help him, he dragged her to the oracle and made her tell him what it said. This shows just how much Alexander valued the will and wishes of the Gods with him being determined not to leave without hearing what he thought they wished on him.

Alexander then decided to go and start his conquest of the Persian Empire. This can be viewed as heavily contributing to Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire because if he had been given a warning against going and conducting what he was about to do, or if he did not get the God blessing on his conquest due to him being very pious and respecting all of the Gods greatly, he would have most likely postponed or abandoned his plans of conquering the Persian Empire. Therefore, because of his religious beliefs and Alexander perceiving that the Gods were on his side and he would succeed in his goals, Alexander was motivated to go on the conquest of the Persian Empire. In this instance, Alexander’s religious beliefs could be viewed as being a very key motivation because it was the last push that he needed to go and conquer the Persian Empire.

The Role of Revenge in Alexander’s Conquest

Another key factor that could be viewed as being a key motivating factor is the topic of Alexander wanting revenge on the Persians for their actions they conducted in the past. After the Battle of Issus which occurred in November 333 BC, between Alexander and Darius III, the Persian leader. Alexander’s army won after Darius lead his army on a surprise march to Alexander’s army in an attempt to cut off their supplies. After this battle, Darius realized just how big of a threat Alexander was to the Persian Empire and was very keen to appease him and get rid of the threat Alexander posed to him. Darius sent a letter to Alexander offering amongst other things, to surrender half of his Empire to Alexander and then the two of them would be at peace with one another and the fighting and Alexander’s conquest would draw to a halt. Alexander however refused and decided to pursue Darius. In the letter, Alexander sent to Darius III in response, Arrian records that he himself specifically gave Darius a reason as to what motivated him and why he has decided to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire (Ancient-origins.net, 2019).

This example clearly states that Alexanders motivation was because of the fact that he wanted revenge on the Persians because of the Greco-Persian wars which occurred in the past and that he had no choice, but to go and attack the Persians, because they were in fact the ones who were attacking them and that he was after revenge for the actions they had previously done in the past evidencing a big motivation, at least on Arrians behalf, for why Alexander decided to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire was for the idea of revenge and wanting to make the Persians pay, inheriting his own father’s need and want to gain revenge on the Persians for what they had done in the past, which was passed onto Alexander when Phillip II was assassinated.

Another example of Alexander wanting revenge on the Persians and their allies is through the sheer brutality he met his enemies with and the fact that he showed little mercy to them. One of the first battles which Alexander fought against the army of the Persian Empire was at the battle of the River Granicus. As part of the Persian army, there were around 10,000 Greek mercenaries who were adding the Persian army. Alexander attacked the Persian army with swift speed and despite being slightly outnumbered, he defeated the Persian army. The Greek mercenaries, however, because they were stationed right at the back of the army they did not have time to join in the battle due to the quick nature of Alexander’s attack. Instead of allowing his fellow Greeks to join their side or let them go freely, angered by the traitors, Alexander ordered for all of them to be completely massacred and there were promptly slaughtered. This is another example of revenge being a key factor in Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire because, instead of letting them go, Alexander wanted revenge all of the people who had wronged Macedonia and Greece in the past, not even stopping in his revenge to let his fellow Greeks live.

Economic Incentives for Alexander’s Persian Campaign

Alexander’s want for money and riches for himself and the countries and city-states which he ruled over also played a key part in motivating him to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire. From any invasion and conquest, people gain money and riches from ransacking and pillaging towns and gaining their riches as well as gaining slaves for labor tasks from a city’s inhabitants. This could have played a huge factor in motivating Alexander to indeed go on a conquest of the Persian Empire, with it being interesting to note that Arrian (Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander) recorded that Alexander conducted a speech after his army mutinied and refused to follow him any further in Opis in 324 BC :

‘I inherited from my father a few gold and silver cups, and less than 60 talents in the treasury; Philip had debts amounting to 500 talents, and I raised a loan of a further 800. I started from a country that could barely sustain you and immediately opened up the Hellespont for you, although the Persians then held the mastery of the sea.’

This shows that Alexander needed to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire due to the fact that despite Macedonia and its surrounding states being very powerful and monetarily wise, they were not as powerful, and when Phillip II was assassinated, he left behind a lot of debt for Alexander to manage. Alexander wanted to keep together the very powerful army his father had maintained and managed, but he would need to have been able to pay and provide for them and in order for him to have accomplished this, he would have been forced to gain money through other means, such as invading and the conquerest of the Persian Empire, which is why the gain of riches and money could be viewed as being a key motivation in making Alexander go on a conquest of the Persian Empire (Ancient-origins.net, 2019).

Alexander’s Thirst for Adventure and Exploration

The last factor which could be viewed as being another key motivating factor for Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire was his thirst and desire for adventure. In Alexander’s case, his ‘thirst for adventure’ could be defined as ‘the craving and yearning’ of an ‘exciting or risky undertaking or exploit’ (Breslin, McKeown, and Groves, 2012). This is especially shown in the instance of the 10-year conquest of the Persian Empire where his army mutinied and point-blank refused to follow him any further. When Alexander had conquered essentially the whole of the Persian Empire, after the battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC, in India, against the King Porus of Pauvaa, this battle was the closest Alexander defeat, struggling to fight against the war elephants which King Porus used to his advantage. Undeterred, Alexander was desperate to push forward, outside of the Persian Empire to reach a Great River to which ancient Greek Geographers stated that it marked the end of their known world and lead into modern-day India. Alexander was desperate to push past it and explore the world beyond, showing that he really wanted to explore the world further and that despite him achieving his aim of conquering the Persian Empire, he wanted to go further and have more of an adventure, further evidencing that his motivation for going on a conquest of the Persian Empire was driven by his desire to explore the Persian lands and even go deeper and explore unknown lands to the Greeks, however, Alexander’s wishes did not occur, when his army mutinied at the River Hyphasis, known more commonly today as the River Beas, due to the fact that, unlike Alexander, the men did not have such a strong thirst for adventure and after 8 years of constant fighting and marching, they simply wanted to go home to the land and families they had not seen in many years and so although Alexander decided to turn his army around, it is fair to say he would have done this with a degree of reluctance.

There were also some instances in Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire where Alexander’s thirst for adventure and his want to know more about new cultures and practices, such as the Persian culture, was evident in his conquest. In around 330 BC there were multiple complaints as to the way Alexander had begun to dress. Alexander’s thirst for adventure and conquest had seemingly gone too much to his head and after the defeat of Darius III, when Alexander had become King of Persia, he had taken to wearing parts of Persian royal clothes, such as a diadem and a white and purple striped tunic. This understandably outraged many of the Greek soldiers and advisors under Alexander’s rule as they exclaimed that he was losing sight of his Greek roots. Despite this not being a prime example, this is still an example of Alexander’s discovery of a new culture, but the wearing of the Persian royal dress was possibly a step too far.

Conclusion: The Complex Motivations Behind Alexander’s Conquest

In conclusion, Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire was not based solely on the primary objective of seeking glory for himself, although that did, in part, motivate him to do so. At the start of Alexander’s campaign in the conquest of the Persian Empire, he had inherited his father, Phillip II’s, legacy in wanting to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire to gain revenge on the Persians for what they had conducted in the Greco-Persian wars, evidenced in Arrian’s account of Alexander stating in his speech to Darius that he started his conquest to gain revenge on the Persians and that he wanted to crush and conquer the Persian Empire in revenge. This also ties in with his burning of the Acropolis as recorded by Diodorus, because with him being a very pious man, respecting the Gods greatly, he exacted his revenge on the Persians for destroying the sacred temples on the Acropolis, showing that revenge and his religion played a very key part in motivating him to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire, with Alexander even going to ask the Gods at the oracle at Delphi if he should go on the conquest in the first place. Another key motivator in his conquest of the Persian Empire was because of the monetarily gain it would provide him and the places which he had already secured rule over, with Arrian again referencing Alexander to have said that he needed to go on a conquest of the Persian Empire because of the huge amount of debt his father had left him. However, these key motivating factors slowly faded and did not motivate Alexander as much when he had first started to conquer the Persian Empire. Instead, Alexander’s thirst for adventure and want for more glory became the main key motivating factors that pushed him further and further in his conquest, with him naming multiple cities after himself, being inspired to follow in the steps of the Hero he idolized, Achilles and winning all of the battles he fought in, even denying a peace agreement from Darius III which would have allowed him to gain more land, but instead wanting the glory of defeating Darius III in battle. His thirst for adventure even motivated him to want to conquer places outside of the Persian Empire, however, the only thing that stopped him was the fact that his army mutinied and refused to go any further, and his thirst to discover new cultures led to many of his Greek Allies getting angry at him, such as with him wearing Persian royal dress. Therefore, Alexander’s motivation for conquering the Persian Empire changed and molded over the years 336-323 BC, with his main motivations at the start being his need for money and riches, his inherited anger at the Persians and the need for revenge, his religious stance with him consulting the Gods to see if he should go down this path and his desire to exact vengeance on the Persians in retribution to what they had done to the Greek sacred temples. Therefore, once his motivations had been fulfilled, his motivations shifted to his thirst for adventure and his need to be recognized and gain glory. These motivations were almost fulfilled with Alexander having many more plans for his conquest in other places, but this stopped when, in 323 BC, he abruptly died in Babylon.

Alexander The Great: The Philosopher King And Propator

Introduction to Alexander the Great as a Philosopher King

Throughout all of history, there have been leaders whose influences have been so impactful that their name and all that it encompasses will never be forgotten. Such leaders include the powerful Macedonian ruler, Alexander the Great. Alexander was known for being both an intellectual and a powerful king. In fact, he was taught by the famous philosopher, Aristotle; the student of another well-known philosopher, Plato. While both Aristotle and Plato contributed heavily to the knowledge of politics, Plato’s Republic is a piece of work that has had a long-lasting impact on the field of political science. Throughout this work, the reader learns what a just society should be and the type of ruler of that society, which Plato deems as a philosopher-king. When one is to analyze what Plato describes as this type of ruler, I argue that Alexander the Great was indeed a philosopher-king.

Plato is known to be one of the greatest Western philosophers of all time. With his equally famous predecessor and teacher, Socrates, Plato was certainly destined for greatness. Around 427 BCE Plato was born into a wealthy Athenian family in Athens, Greece (blackboard pdf). Born as Aristocles, son of Ariston of the deme Cloytus, the name Plato was a nickname reportedly given to him by his wrestling coach due to his broad shoulders (“Platon” means broad in Greek). Despite Plato’s later comprehensive political and philosophical works, his initial interests were more vested in the arts where he often wrote plays and poetry as a youth. It was not until Plato was in his late teen years that he became intrigued by Socrates and decided to shift directions to study under him; a common trend for elite young men. Plato would go on to produce one of his most famous works to date, the Republic, which introduces the widely discussed notion of a philosopher-king.

Plato wrote the Republic presumably during 380 BCE when he established his Academy in Athens. The Republic has often been the logic used for the creation of political institutions and governments around the world. Furthermore, Plato’s Republic is one of the most contested pieces of literature because of the dialogues that take place between the main character, Socrates, and the people he encounters. The dialogue begins with a consideration of what justice means and goes on to develop the ideal, perfect state. The Republic is trying to establish a strong correlation between this ideal state and the attainment of justice. It is particularly in Book V, where the reader is introduced to the notion of a philosopher-king that Plato uses as part of the correlation between justice and the ideal state. In this section, Socrates argues how a just city can not be created until philosophers rule as kings or kings become philosophers.

Plato’s Concept of a Philosopher-King and Its Relevance to Alexander

Plato describes a philosopher-king as one who is just, moderate, courageous, a quick learner, and a lover of truth. Plato describes that it is this last quality, a lover of truth, that is needed to have the moral ethics to be free from the temptation to abuse one’s power. Additionally, a philosopher-king should be wise, have military and government experience, and not be ignorant. He should also showcase political greatness and their intelligence. When it comes to education, one should be versed in subjects such as mathematics, philosophy, science, the arts, and have practical political training. It is important to be trained and specialized in rational thinking and philosophy to discern good, apply knowledge and make rational judgments for the whole of society. The philosopher king has reached the hall-mark of wisdom, philosophy, justice, and dialectics. The philosopher-king, therefore, is seen and selected as the best in the republic which Alexander the Great was when looking at all he has accomplished in his life.

When analyzing the type of childhood Alexander the Great had, it should be noticeable how he was equipped with the education and skills needed to be a philosopher-king. Before he became Alexander the Great, he was born Alexander III of Macedon on July 21, 356 BCE. His father was King Phillip II of Macedon and his mother, Olympias, was the daughter of King Neoptolemus of Epirus (ancient encyclopedia). As a young child, Alexander was taught to fight and ride by the famous general, Leonidas, and to participate in forced marches. It is clear how physical education was of utmost importance for the young prince. Phillip II was very involved in making sure the future king would be one of many talents and it was for this reason he would have different tutors teach his son. He brought Lysimachus of Acarnania to teach Alexander reading, writing, and how to play the lyre. Alexander even had a habit of carrying books with him on his way to conquer other lands. His love of reading has been attributed to his later teacher, Aristotle, and his appreciation for art and culture. This goes to show how Alexander followed the criteria for Plato’s philosopher-king which includes: always seeking the truth, intelligence, and being a lover of philosophy.

Alexander’s Early Life and Education Under Aristotle

A more influential teacher Phillip II brought to Macedonia was Aristotle in 343 BCE when Alexander was only 14 years old. It would have been expected that Aristotle would have taught Alexander various subjects he profusely studied such as biology, medicine, logic, mathematics, and especially philosophy. Aristotle made such an impression on Alexander that he constantly carried Aristotle’s works with him on his conquests and introduced his philosophy to the east when he took over the Persian Empire. Indeed, Alexander was such a strong lover of philosophy that he even appointed Aristotle’s great-nephew as his court philosopher when he became king. Alexander would also bring the court philosopher with him while conquering the east. With the help of Alexander, Aristotle’s works were able to be spread, eventually influencing others and their future schools of thought. Going back to Alexander’s childhood, there were many stories exalting Alexander as a naturally intelligent and inquisitive individual. One example was when he was able to tame the “untamable” horse, Bucephalus, at the young age of 11 or 12 years. He was able to tame Bucephalus by deducing that the horse was scared of its shadow and thus proceeded to speak in a soft voice and turn the horse so that it did not see its shadow. From such a young age, Alexander was able to use deductive reasoning skills, critical thinking skills, and then make a wise, rational decision based on logic. With all these life experiences mentioned, it is clear how Alexander the Great was intelligent, wise, and excelled in many of the education criteria that Plato prescribes a philosopher to have.

Alexander’s Military and Political Leadership

Alexander the Great was known for his military leadership as he was able to conquer Persia, Syria, and Egypt as well as help his father unite all the Greek city-states. When it came to political and military experience, Alexander the Great was especially proficient in these fields. As heir to the throne, it would be expected that Alexander would have at least some political experience but there were even times when his father would trust him with the entire kingdom. An example of this trust was when Philip II went to battle the Byzantium’s and left Alexander in charge of Macedonia when he was just 16. As Phillip II was a proficient and respectable ruler in his own right, for him to give his son such an important responsibility indicates the certainty Phillip II had in Alexander’s political and leadership abilities. Around this same time, in 338 B.C., Alexander proved his military worth by leading a cavalry against the Sacred Band of Thebes during the Battle of Chaeronea. While still young, Alexander obtained a decisive Macedonian victory and defeated the Greek allied city-states which would later be united under Macedonian rule. Alexander’s willingness to put his life on the line to obtain such a victory indicates the courage he had while fighting for his country and what he believed would be for the good of the Greeks. Alexander’s choice to help unify the Greek city-states was an extremely wise decision and very politically significant. If Alexander had not scored a victory during the Battle of Chaeronea there would have been a chance that the allied Greek city-states won. If this were the case, Alexander’s political power and position as king may not have been as stable or strong as it was. It is through these actions that we see Alexander’s political and military greatness as a king.

When Philip II was assassinated in 336 BCE, Alexander assumed the throne and embarked on the great campaign his father had been planning; the conquest of the Persian Empire. During his various battles and conquests, the decisions Alexander made during these times showcased his rational and dialectic nature, good decision-making, political greatness, and more. With a large army, Alexander crossed over to Asia Minor in 334 BCE and destroyed the city of Baalbek, renaming it Heliopolis. He then liberated the Greek city of Ephesus from Persian rule and offered to rebuild the Temple of Artemis which was destroyed by arson on the night of his birth, but the city refused his gesture. Through these actions, it can be argued that while ruthless, Alexander’s actions can be considered extremely fair and just. Although he conquered Baalbek, he still got justice for his fellow Greeks and liberated them. In addition, he even offered to rebuild their sacred and holy site. This is definitely not an action someone who is obsessed with power and is evil would do; especially those of a royal background. In this regard, Alexander as a king was humble enough to rectify what he considered his wrongdoing. He thus clearly personifies the modest and just character that Plato describes a philosopher should have. In addition, we also see a brief instance of Alexander’s diplomatic skills on display while demonstrating his political awareness. His gesture alone had the capability to win over the hearts and minds of the people in Ephesus. When you have the hearts and minds of the people, your power and authenticity as a ruler are more solidified. Although it can be argued that Alexander’s offer was, in part, because he believed that his divine lineage was at play in the burning of this temple, he nonetheless did not have to give such an offer as he already liberated them. These sorts of gestures to maintain good relations with the lands under his control would continue throughout his entire campaign to conquer the East.

Alexander’s Adoption of Cultural Practices and Diplomacy

Although Alexander the Great successfully conquered major areas of the East, he was not interested in imposing his own ideas of truth, religion, or behavior upon the subdued people as long as they willingly supported his troops and complied with his authority. In fact, during Alexander’s campaign of conquest, he would often adopt aspects of local cultures showing his interest in learning cultures different from his. One example includes the time when Alexander adopted the title ShahanShah (King of Kings) which was used by the rulers of the First Persian Empire. Alexander also introduced the Persian custom of proskynesis to the army, making those who addressed him, kneel and kiss his hand. While introducing these customs Alexander still brutally defeated Persia but he surprisingly showed compassion to his greatest enemy, King Darius III of Persia. When King Darius III was assassinated in 331 BCE, Alexander was said to have treated his body with the utmost respect and extended that respect to King Darius’s surviving family members. By showing respect to the Persian royal family, Alexander avoided what could have been a political nightmare; a nightmare where Alexander ruthlessly killed the royal family could have caused a blood-thirsty battle of revenge and hatred between the Greeks and the Persians. It can be argued that Alexander’s wise decision was not one made by pure self-interest but for the safety of the Greeks. Therefore, this level of respect and justice Alexander had was what truly made him a philosopher-king.

Conclusion: Alexander’s Legacy as a Philosopher-King

Plato’s Republic is one of his most influential works as it describes the dialogues Socrates had with the various people he meets. Through these dialogues, we come to learn what justice means and what a just city entails. Plato specifically explains how the one to rule such a city is a philosopher-king. When looking at all criteria that Plato defines for a ruler of this just city, Alexander the Great of Macedonia was a philosopher-king. Although Alexander the Great died in 323, at the young age of 32, he was a philosopher-king whose impact will never be forgotten.

Alexander The Great: Legendary Conqueror And Military Leader

The topic left a long-lasting impression on me because of his acts as his life goes on. Some of these impressions were most felt by me was when the class was watching the video on Alexander’s life. Where is the start, he was the most loved person by everyone, but as time passes, he becomes the ruler that nobody likes. Such acts of killing his close ones would not be considered as traits of a well-militarized ruler. According to information that we learned in class, this essay is about his life and how it impacts our impressions by acts done by Alexander the Great. Also, would he be called Alexander the great or just Alexander?

Alexander would grow up to be one of the world’s most mind-blowing military pioneers. Normally acquainted with a time of immaterial tyrants and wildness Alexander the Great used the amazing preparation he got – from, among others, Aristotle – and used it to marshal his forces in about limitless battles. He created triumphant through the range of 13 years of battles from which was designed maybe the greatest space the world has ever watched. He was considered more of a militarized general for his emperor and worried less about the politics of his home place. Alexander the Great was born in 356 BC to King Phillip II of Macedon and his loved one Olympias. But many believe that his father was none other than Zeus.

Following his father’s passing Alexander succeeded him to the Macedon respected position and the multi-year-old King brutally murdered the total of his foes to the crown. This mercilessness would add to Alexander vanquishing most of the known world with a space that reached out for 10,000 miles and joined the Mediterranean, an enormous segment of Europe, and reached the edges of India. Alexander the Great was slanted to assaults of savage tempers and in later life, he gave in to vanity. There were so many battles and the warriors who were with Alexander during the battles were getting tired and had to return.

Despite the fact that not actually what one would call a representative, he was a military virtuoso who utilized trickiness, inventiveness, and sidelong deduction to overcome regularly unfathomably predominant powers. His most prominent triumph was at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC in what today is Iraq. The Greek language was likewise a device that Alexander the Great employed with extraordinary reason. Preceding the extension of his domain there was much minimal communication in dialects, when he forced the utilization of Greek, it made a typical language that cultivated the development of culture, business, and authority among the vanquished terrains.

To the exclusion of everything else, Alexander the Great was an officer in view of his sheer grisly disapproved of self-importance and his confidence in his very own prevalence. He realized he was correct and through the alluring predominance he controlled, after all, he solidly accepted he was an immediate descendent of Achilles. This conviction was imparted in him since the beginning by his dad and his mentors at school, church, and in the military.

At the point when he kicked the bucket in 323 BC, in suspicious conditions at the period of only 32, he abandoned a gigantic domain wherein a social transformation had begun yet which was consistently on the very edge of a fall into bedlam. This fall was something like nothing was ever done. During his life, he gained so much power, but after his death, it was like going back to normal the way it was.

Essay on Alexander the Great Achievements

Alexander the Great was an ancient Macedonian ruler of Macedonia and Persia. He is recognized as one of the world’s best leaders. Alexander the Great built the largest and most dominating empire in the world. He was born in Macedonia, Greece in three hundred fifty-six BC. Alexander the Great father was King Philip Two, and his mother’s name was Queen Olympias. His father was a Greek god, which we recognize today as “Zeus.” Alexander the Great succeeded his father at the age of twenty. Alexander followed his father and continued to dominate the world. When his father decided to unite Greece, Alexander had dreams of world conquest. Alexander also tried to conquer the Persian Empire, which was a massive empire during his time. also, Alexander the Great was loyal to his army, and his army would follow him everywhere he went. His army would give life to protect him without hesitation.

Alexander studied with Aristotle for more than three years and had a deep analytical interest in science, so he was good with war tactics. He had great skills and was able to handle his army very effectively. Alexander protected Macedonian’s border even though he had problems with Athens, Thebes, and Sparta. He wants to conquer Darius and the Persian empire. In addition, Alexander spent the last ten years in the Persian empire, and he never came to Macedonia. He was considered a brilliant strategist, and developed the technique called’ phalanx’. In this technique, all men walk on an angled line considered as an ‘echelon’ which is a vertical line.

In September, 356 BC, King Philip received a message from a general that they had won one of the swindle wars, and his wife gave birth to Alexander. Meanwhile, Macedonia was divided into two regions, which were Upper Macedonia and Lower Macedonia. Upper Macedonia had a continental climate while lower Macedonia had a seasonal climate. There was also a rule in Macedonia that the king could be revoked with the vote of his executives. Alexander grew up in a male-dominated household which had all the drunken feasts and lethal soldiers. His brother Olympian was ‘mama’s boy’ and wouldn’t get along with his brother Alexander. He was a dark and brutal kind of person who used to hold grudges for years and kill people for their misbehavior. During this time Philip was the most powerful ruler in the entire Greece. When Persians conquered Sidon (Egypt) in 345, Philip helped the Egyptians to get rid of them. One time when Philip saw ambition and power to conquer the world in his son’s eyes he was astonished by his rebellious nature. His father advised him to be in touch with the Macedonian dignities. Once Philip had difficulties leading war on the sea, so he led them to land with crook and won over the joint forces of the neighboring countries. Athens and Thebes didn’t accept the proposal of peace, so Philip went to war with them and did a direct attack and won.

When Alexander became the king of Macedonia he managed to eliminate all his enemies except Amyntas and Cananis, Cleopatra’s baby. He maintained his father’s principles and gave the position to all his friends who returned from exile and made them court’s executives. People from his empire tried to rebel against his decision but later they cooperated. Thebes and Athens acknowledged Alexander. He trained his soldiers in the valley and planned to enter Europe, but he had one problem Thracians. Later, when he returned to Pella he saw there were no resources for the Macedonian population to run the economy, so he decided to wage a war capture lands, and give his people some benefits. Also, to run an army requires a lot of expenses, so that was the only option he had to go to war. He also collected huge revenue from the people of his kingdom and trained his troops for the war against Darrius. Alexander’s troops contained a lot of scholars, and war technicians which made his army almost unstoppable and he set out to war on Persia involving various deities.

People did not know Alexander’s plan when he attacked Persia. When Alexander won the battle of Glanicus he had access and control over the revenue of the region and he selected the best ministers to manage the office. Meanwhile, he captured Ionia, Lydia, and Aeolid, therefore his kingdom. Afterward, he made his base in Ephesus. New Smyrna city was also built by him. He went to Miletus, but the people of Miletus refused him to change the city. The Macedonians didn’t repeat their past mistakes called the massacre of Thebans. Alexander helped Ada to regain her empire from the enemies and her child was named ‘The Alexander’. The same strategy was followed by Alexander in regaining other empires back too. In the meanwhile, Darius returned to Babylon and proposed to Alexander a settlement. But, he hated Darius and didn’t want any settlement. Darius wanted him to settle at Marathon. Darius wanted his family returned and was willing to move to the west lands of the Hales River. It was Darius who was just defending his territory but now wanted to have a peace treaty with him. But, Alexander wanted to be called the ‘king of Asia’. Darius changed his strategy and made a new plan to enter Europe and trained his soldiers harshly. They were meant to be demons. He supplied the Spartan king and Persian royalties’ ships. With the help of they started to capture some parts of Asia. Darius had no idea that Alexander was willing to sacrifice the entire of Greece and Macedonia to win over the Persian Empire.

Alexander captured all the coastal cities with Gaza’s submission. Gaza was an important trade center and the key to access Egypt. It was hard for Alexander to penetrate the Gazans it was a strong base. It took him more than a week to reach Pelusium which was in the Nile Delta region. Later, he went to Memphis in total he spent three months in the region of Egypt. He was also called the ‘Patriarch of the Egypt’. He went to Naucratis to ease down the market on the Egypt trade. He decides to build the city of Alexander on the island of Pharos. He went to the Oracle to ensure his prestige. He used to go to them whenever he needed any special advice and was also addressed as “the son of Zeus” or “Ammon”. He used to consider Egypt as his lucky charm. After gaining victory on Gaugamela he was addressed as ‘the king of Asia’. He got so overconfident that the army started to feel low and wanted to go back home to Macedonia. After Gaugamela, he went to Babylon where he was welcomed because he regained the trust of the people by regaining their gods. Sousa became the second capital of Alexander in the winter. Finally, after Philoxenus surrendered he got the throne of Darius. Alexander waged a winter campaign and arrived at the burial place of Achaemenid royalties. When he was in Ecbatana he received a message that Darius was captured by a coup by Bessus and Niaprazines. Bessus declared himself Great King. Alexander wanted Darius alive but instead, he was killed by Bessus. Alexander paid his respect to Darius at Persepolis. The throne of Darius was Alexander’s, but Bessus didn’t want to give up the throne as it was a big part of Alexander’s kingdom.

Alexander restarted his merch back in winter and had to visit southern states before coming to Bessus. He crossed the Hindu Kush in spring, which took seventeen days. The speed by which Alexander’s troops moved made Bessus surrender and leave. When he reached Oxus, his soldiers started to leave with the rivals, so he had to give position to the locals. Bessus was captured and was executed publicly. He continued to march and was also injured seriously. He would regain his health meanwhile his armies moved to the Black Sea. India’s Geography wasn’t known to him. He massacred seven thousand alive. Alexander divided his army and sent half part through the Khyber Pass with orders to take out and gain control of everything they encountered. The half-part with Alexander would eliminate opposition in the Bajour and Swat regions. He was also a very generous king and was generous to Am Phi. He made his way through India, but he had to stop at the Jhelum River because of the monsoon. He made it seem like his army was waiting at the river while the other half attacked and captured the enemy region. After that, he started to retreat. He thought for some reason that India had a lot of riches because it was called the ‘Golden Sparrow’ but he didn’t get anything from there. When he returned to Greece the disloyal needed to flee as he was a potential threat. So, he received the news that all the people were trying to leave Greece. The monsoon got over so the army waiting at the bank region marched ahead. Two tribes waited for him at the Chenab, but he was indestructible. They captured Chenab but after that, the soldiers who stood by him for eight years were now tired and wanted to go back home.

On the way back home, he got injured during the battle of Citadel. News spread that he died like fire. Harpalus escaped when all the treacherous people fled and stayed away from Alexander but then Neorchus told him on returning that all the people fled to Hormoz. Alexander became restless when he still had to capture the Mediterranean region. When the mass marriage ceremony happened at Susa, Alexander took two wives and one the daughter of Darius. But his marriage wasn’t appreciated by either the Greeks or Persians. In the fall, Harpalus tried to negotiate deals with Alexander and was arrested. But somehow, he managed to escape but was eventually assassinated in Crete. When he went to Ecbatana his commander in chief and his dear friend died so he gave them a proper burial. He received news that his wife Roxanne was pregnant and later gave birth to a son. The child was legally his heir. When his army fled with ships to Babylon from Greece he found out that it was a bad omen, so he stayed outside for a few weeks.

Alexander and Caesar were both considered to be the greatest conquerors of the ancient world while Cicero and Demosthenes are considered to have been its greatest wordsmiths. two of the speakers opposed the two conquerors, raising important moral questions regarding their royalties and freedom. Demosthenes, a great oracle who was cowardly by nature, saw Alexander and his father Philip as cruel and oppressive rulers. On the other hand, Cicero who didn’t know any military tactics tried to fight a verbal war and tried to save the Roman Republic. They were both killed by some tyrants. Many people saw Alexander and Caesar as just troublesome oppressors but Without Alexander, the Greeks would have continued to fight their fiddling wars and Hellenic culture would have remained undiscovered in a small corner of the Mediterranean Sea. But, it was Alexander who made Greece famous. When Ceaser came to power wrongfully there were many riots and public massacres, plots, military tyrants, etc. Writing was considered important in Hellenic culture so, that’s the reason why Plutarch found Alexander and Ceaser important as they were Hotshots. Plutarch’s writing has a unique style that focuses on every character’s traits and displays them with a unique quotation style.

Alexander the Great Legacy Essay

Describe the manner of Alexander the Great’s death

After 13 years of campaigning to build the greatest empire in the world, Alexander the Great returned with his army to Babylon (near modern Baghdad) to rest and strategize for his next conquest. His push for endless campaigning had led his generals to threaten mutiny; and through his increasingly eccentric behavior, he had lost the loyalty of some of his close friends. On May 23, 323 BC, Alexander attended a dinner party hosted by a close friend. He joined in the heavy drinking and feasting over a whole day and night and by the end, he came down with a fever. Over the successive days his health deteriorated, and he suffered excruciating abdominal pain and paralysis. Finally, too weak to leave his bed, Alexander died ten days later.

The exact cause of Alexander’s death is not known as it was not customary at the time to record the cause of death. Historians have debated the cause of death for centuries with some suggesting it may have been attributed to his years of war and injuries. Other theories are that he died of typhoid, malaria, or alcohol poisoning (he drank heavily at times) and another theory is that he was assassinated by a poison such as strychnine. A more recent theory is that he contracted a disease called Guillain Barre Syndrome caused by a virus resulting in an extreme immune response and paralysis. This may explain why his body did not decompose for up to 6 days after death as he may have still been alive but without a perceptible pulse.

His death was so sudden that when news of his death reached Greece, they were not immediately believed. Alexander left no legitimate heir to his empire because his son Alexander IV was born after his death (Briant, 2012).

After Alexander’s death, his vast empire fell into civil war as his four top generals fought against each other for the expansion of their parts of the empire.

Discuss the impact of Alexander the Great’s personality on his career

Alexander’s military exploits extended the Macedonian empire as far east as India. There is no question that he was a spectacularly successful general and that he had demonstrated brilliance in battle and siege tactics. His willingness to fight rather than hold back until battles were over was both commendable in general and an inspiration to his troops; Alexander always led the charge and was always to be found in the thick of fighting. This meant that he, too, was often wounded. He was quick to identify with his mean, and to suffer the same hardships as they did, nor would he abandon them, often risking great personal danger.

From a tender age, Alexander was brought up to believe that his birth was divine and that he was a descendant of heroes and the gods Zeus and Achilles. (Heckel,&Tritle, 2011). His feats and successes instilled this belief. When he was just a teenager, he tamed a wild giant of a horse called Bucephalus causing his father to tell him he was destined to lead a giant empire.

His father, Philip II of Macedonia, ensured that Alexander was given the best Greek education, with the great philosopher Aristotle as his teacher and mentor. His education infused Alexander with knowledge of logic, music, philosophy, and culture. He was extensively educated in “The Iliad”, the legendary story of the greatest battle of all time and Alexander modeled himself on the hero and half-god Achilles. Aristotle’s teachings led Alexander to treat his conquered subjects well, allowing them to maintain their own beliefs while following Greek culture. This brought him admiration and loyalty throughout his empire.

Alexander experienced his father’s campaigns through many victories, thereby learning the art of war from a young age. He saw how Philip modeled the Macedonian army from citizen warriors into a professional army that conquered all of Greece. Philip suffered severe injuries in battles such as the loss of an eye and a broken shoulder, but he kept on fighting, something that Alexander would do as the commander of his army. In one incident, Philip decided to leave Alexander a 16-year-old teenager in charge of Macedonia while he was away (Freeman, 2011). Alexander took this opportunity and defeated the Thracian people known as Maedi. When Alexander was just 20 years old, his father was assassinated, and by then he had the means and the ambition to create his empire.

He had great charisma, leadership, courage, and belief in his divinity. Alexander was also a visionary leader able to dream, plan, and strategize on a large scale to defeat bigger kingdoms with larger armies and win many battles even when seriously outnumbered. His army was well-trained and organized and their powerful phalanx formations ruthlessly led by Alexander were superior to the enemy. (Heckel,& Tritle,2011).

This visionary leadership and belief in his greatness motivated his army. The other benefits such as glory, acquisition of land, and power from these conquests were bestowed upon his loyal generals.

Alexander was also inspiring and courageous. He devoted much of his time training his army, rewarding them with spoils and honors and going into battles beside them, increasing their devotion and confidence. Anson (2013) states that Alexander was a young, handsome, and empathetic leader who helped improve his influence on his soldiers and subjects.

However, his character was full of contradiction, particularly in his later years when he became increasingly erratic and paranoid. Despite his military achievements, Alexander failed to win the respect of some of his subjects. For instance, he was paranoid about his top general, Parmenion (whose son was executed by Alexander for treason), suspecting that he would overthrow him. Alexander was seen as too ambitious. He intended to build an empire that stretched from Gibraltar to the Bay of Bengal and across the Italian and Arabian Peninsula. He was ready to do anything to achieve his ambition and be recognized worldwide as the god-king. But this caused issues with his army which threatened mutiny as he planned to invade India.

Assess Alexander the Great’s achievements as a military leader. Support your response using evidence from the above source and other relevant sources.

Alexander is often referred to as ‘the Great’ due to his extraordinary leadership, and strategic and military achievements. Some of Alexander the Great’s achievements include the following:

    • The Battle of Chaeronea and the defeat of Sacred Band

The rise of Philip II of Macedonia, Alexander’s father, was a threat to Greece’s independent city-states such as Thebes and Athens. This led to the battle of Chaeronea in Boeotia, central Greece in 338 BC, in which 18 Alexander, aged 18, led the left-wing cavalry command securing his father’s victory (Worthington, 2014). Alexander defeated the Sacred group of Thebes, an elite corps, historically believed to be unstoppable.

    • Reaffirmation of Alexander as the King of Macedonia and control of Greece

Alexander was declared King of Macedonia at the age of 20, following the assassination of his father, King Philip II, in 336 BC. Phillip’s death bolstered several states and tribes such as Athens, Thebes, and Thessaly. With 3,000 cavalries, Alexander moved quickly to force Thessaly into surrender. Athens soon joined the league and they granted Alexander the designation ‘Hegemon.’

Alexander needed to protect and secure his northern boundaries before his Asian mission. He successfully crushed the Thracian rebellions headed by Cleitus, the King of Illyria, and Glaukias, the King of Taulantii, among others. These victories followed the victory over of the city of Thebes, which had revolted again. Finally, these triumphs made Greece as a whole accept Alexander’s rule (Freeman, 2011). Alexander, therefore, secured full control of Greece in just two years.

    • Conquest of the Achaemenid Empire- The Battles of Persia against Darius III

For over a century, the Persians had harassed the Greeks with many invasions and interference in Asia Minor. Alexander, therefore, planned revenge by invading and taking over the power of the enormous Persian empire stretching across Asia to India. The Persian Emperor was Darius the III.

    • Battle of Granicus River 334 BC

The first major battle in Asia Minor (Turkey) at the Hellespont (Dardanelles) at Granicus River saw Alexander demonstrate his courage and strategic brilliance. Against the advice of his general Parmenion to delay, he attacked as soon as they arrived at the river even though his army was tired. Alexander could see that the Persian cavalry were on difficult ground closest to the river with the infantry behind them – a strategic error. His infantry attacked across the river head-on, drawing the Persian cavalry to become caught up in close-quarter hand-to-hand fighting on muddy ground with the infantry behind them of no use. Alexander’s cavalry then crossed the river on the flanks and defeated the Persians. This greatly weakened the Persians in Asia Minor with many Satraps (governors) killed in this important battle. Alexander was courageous and in the thick of the battle himself with his conspicuous glittering armor and white plume. He was almost killed, earning him even greater loyalty from his army. (John R. Mixter, 1997)

    • Battle of Issus 333 BC

The 2nd major battle was at Issus on the plan at the Gulf of Iskendarm in Southern Turkey. Darius led this battle with vastly superior numbers. (Wasson, 2011) However, he chose poor ground with the river and the surrounding mountains restricting his numerical superiority. Alexander had his infantry phalanx in the center and stretched his cavalry far out to the right to the mountains. There he outflanked the Persians and personally, on foot, broke through the Persian lines. Alexander saw Darius on the field and pursued him causing him to flee on his chariot. The Persian troops were thus demoralized, and the battle was won by Alexander. Alexander pursued the wounded Darius on a horse until nightfall but could not catch him. Darius’ wife and daughters were left behind and became part of Alexander’s entourage where they were treated as royalty. Alexander even married one of Darius’ daughters. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998)

    • Battle of Guagemela 331 BC

After the battles of Tyre and Gaza, it was a relatively peaceful time in Egypt for Alexander, where his army recovered and strengthened. He also founded the great city of Alexandria. Alexander then moved north on the coast of Phoenicia (Gaza Israel Lebanon) with solid supply support from his navy then marched through the north of modern-day Syria. He travelled down the Tigris through fertile land which was relatively weakly fortified. Thus, Alexander’s troops were in excellent condition when they arrived at Guagemela where Darius had chosen the battleground to meet Alexander. The Greeks were able to take the high ground on a hill before the battle allowing rest while Darius’ army had to remain ready for an attack at any time. The battle saw both sides stretch out on a clear plain, the Persians outnumbering the Greeks by estimates of 2 – 10 times. Alexander split his army into left and right flanks and Darius attacked the weaker middle but without much effect. Alexander was in the right flank and was able to get behind Darius’ middle formation and directly attack Darius’ weaker last line of defense. Darius was defeated and once again fled the field. This defeat effectively brought the Persian Empire to an end.

Other major feats included the Battle of The Persian Gate, a fortified mountain pass, January 330 BC where Alexander marched all night in freezing conditions and led a successful surprise attack from the rear of the gate. Darius was then killed by his army, reportedly by his general Bessus, in July 330 BC.

Finally, In India, Alexander won The Battle of the Hydaspes in a thunderstorm against King Porus who had a superior army with many battle elephants. (Hughes, 2018)

Alexander was known for his heartless, persevering, diplomacy. It was perhaps these attributes that helped him to sustain his long campaigns where he never lost any battles.

At the time of his death, Alexander’s Empire was the biggest at the time, occupying nearly 2,000,000 square miles. His victories led to the rule of Macedonia in many areas of Asia and for the next three centuries, as many of these territories remained under Greek influence. His efforts have also greatly improved east-west interaction and exchange. He also established around 20 towns that bore his name. In the ancient world, the Roman rulers admired Alexander and his achievements and regarded him as their role model.

Essay on Hellenistic Period: Role of Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​

Was​ ​Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​a​ ​Hero​ ​or​ ​a​ ​Villain?

Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​can​ ​be​ ​perceived​ ​as​ ​many​ ​different​ ​things,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​a​ ​villain,​ ​hero,​ ​or both.​ ​He​ ​did​ ​many​ ​good​ ​deeds​ ​and​ ​horrible​ ​ones​ ​in​ ​his​ ​lifetime,​ ​mainly​ ​while​ ​he​ ​was​ ​king​ ​of Macedonia​ ​and​ ​other​ ​areas​ ​he​ ​conquered.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​ruthless​ ​but​ ​also​ ​courageous,​ ​smart,​ ​and skillful.​ ​Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​was​ ​not​ ​a​ ​hero​ ​nor​ ​a​ ​villain,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​simply​ ​a​ ​prominent​ ​conqueror.

Even​ ​though​ ​he​ ​used​ ​force​ ​to​ ​violently​ ​expand​ ​his​ ​empire,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​also​ ​a​ ​skilled​ ​military​ ​leader and​ ​spread​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​around​ ​the​ ​world.

Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​showed​ ​villainous​ ​qualities,​ ​one​ ​such​ ​example​ ​being​ ​he​ ​used​ ​violent force​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​and​ ​expand​ ​his​ ​empire.​ ​Alexander​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​continue​ ​his​ ​father’s​ ​work​ ​and conquer​ ​more​ ​land.​ ​Alexander​ ​did​ ​not​ ​have​ ​a​ ​very​ ​polite​ ​or​ ​nice​ ​way​ ​of​ ​doing​ ​so​ ​, however.

“…When​ ​he​ ​came​ ​to​ ​Thebes…the​ ​city…was​ ​sacked​ ​and​ ​razed,”​ ​(Document​ ​1).​ ​Alexander​ ​came to ruin​ ​Thebes​ ​to​ ​not​ ​only​ ​conquer​ ​it​ ​but​ ​scare​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​Greece​ ​into​ ​obeying​ ​him.​ ​Alexander sold​ ​thirty​ ​thousand​ ​people​ ​for​ ​slaves​ ​and​ ​killed​ ​six​ ​thousand,​ ​just​ ​in​ ​the​ ​city​ ​of​ ​Thebes, (Document​ ​1).​ ​Alexander​ ​was​ ​willing​ ​to​ ​do​ ​whatever​ ​he​ ​had​ ​to​ ​do​ ​to​ ​expand​ ​his​ ​empire.​ ​He wanted​ ​everyone​ ​to​ ​obey​ ​him​ ​and​ ​have​ ​the​ ​biggest​ ​empire​ ​of​ ​them​ ​all.​ ​Alexander​ ​believed​ ​that​ ​if he​ ​was​ ​ruthless​ ​and​ ​cruel​ ​then​ ​everyone​ ​would​ ​simply​ ​“bow​ ​down”​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​(Document​ ​1). Alexander​ ​was​ ​ruthless​ ​and​ ​used​ ​violence​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​greatest​ ​conqueror​ ​he​ ​could​ ​be.

Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​displayed​ ​more​ ​hero-like​ ​qualities,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​being​ ​a​ ​skilled​ ​military leader.​ ​One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​Alexander​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​conquer​ ​so​ ​much​ ​land​ ​and​ ​have​ ​a​ ​huge​ ​empire was​ ​because​ ​of​ ​his​ ​military.​ ​“Very​ ​renowned​ ​for​ ​rousing​ ​the​ ​courage​ ​of​ ​his​ ​soldiers,​ ​filling​ ​them with​ ​hopes​ ​of​ ​success,”​ ​(Document​ ​4).​ ​Alexander​ ​always​ ​made​ ​sure​ ​that​ ​his​ ​army​ ​was​ ​confident in​ ​themselves.​ ​He​ ​wanted​ ​them​ ​to​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to keep​ ​their​ ​heads​ ​high​ ​and​ ​go​ ​into​ ​a​ ​battle​ ​with​ ​the​ ​idea that​ ​they​ ​could​ ​win.​ ​Alexander​ ​also​ ​used​ ​a​ ​military​ ​formation​ ​called​ ​a​ ​phalanx.​ ​The​ ​phalanx made​ ​it​ ​seem​ ​like​ ​there​ ​was​ ​more​ ​men​ ​than​ ​there​ ​actually​ ​was,​ ​which​ ​could​ ​frighten​ ​other armies.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​song​ ​“Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great”​ ​by​ ​Iron​ ​Maiden,​ ​a​ ​line​ ​from​ ​the​ ​song​ ​says​ ​that Alexander​ ​defeated​ ​King​ ​Darius​ ​and​ ​he​ ​feld,​ ​and​ ​then​ ​Alexander​ ​battled​ ​King​ ​Darius​ ​again​ ​and crushed​ ​him.​ ​Alexander​ ​would​ ​have​ ​had​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​pretty​ ​strong​ ​army​ ​to​ ​defeat​ ​Darius​ ​twice.

Darius​ ​would​ ​have​ ​already​ ​known​ ​how​ ​Alexander’s​ ​army​ ​fought​ ​and​ ​could​ ​have​ ​figured​ ​out​ ​his weaknesses,​ ​but​ ​Alexander​ ​still​ ​won.​ ​Alexander​ ​also​ ​kept​ ​the agreements​ ​and​ ​settlements​ ​he​ ​made and​ ​did​ ​not​ ​fight​ ​for​ ​the​ ​land,​ ​(Document​ ​4).​ ​This​ ​is​ ​a​ ​smart​ ​move​ ​on​ ​Alexander’s​ ​part​ ​because he​ ​will​ ​not​ ​lose​ ​any​ ​men​ ​in​ ​a​ ​battle​ ​to​ ​claim​ ​land​ ​for​ ​which​ ​he​ ​has​ ​an​ ​agreement​ ​on​ ​already. Alexander​ ​was​ ​an​ ​expert​ ​military​ ​chief​ ​and​ ​very​ ​confident​ ​in​ ​his​ ​army.

Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​be​ ​more​ ​like​ ​a​ ​hero​ ​when​ ​he​ ​spread​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture around​ ​the​ ​world.​ ​Hellenistic​ ​is​ ​a​ ​culture​ ​that​ ​is​ ​mainly​ ​Greek​ ​but​ ​has​ ​other​ ​cultures​ ​mixed​ ​into it,​ ​so​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Greek-like​ ​culture.​ ​Alexander​ ​conquered​ ​so​ ​many​ ​different​ ​cities​ ​that​ ​as​ ​he​ ​started​ ​to conquer​ ​more​ ​their​ ​culture​ ​became​ ​mixed​ ​in​ ​with​ ​his​ ​to​ ​create​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture.​ ​Since Alexander​ ​had​ ​conquered​ ​so​ ​many​ ​different​ ​cities​ ​and​ ​states​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​easy​ ​for​ ​him​ ​to​ ​spread his​ ​new​ ​culture.​ ​“For​ ​I​ ​myself​ ​believe​ ​there​ ​was​ ​at​ ​that​ ​time​ ​no​ ​race​ ​of​ ​mankind,​ ​no​ ​city,​ ​no individual​ ​the​ ​name​ ​Alexander​ ​had​ ​not​ ​reached,”​ ​(Document​ ​3).​ ​Alexander​ ​was​ ​known​ ​all​ ​over the​ ​world​ ​so​ ​his​ ​culture​ ​would​ ​be​ ​known​ ​along​ ​with​ ​it.​ ​The​ ​more​ ​cities​ ​and​ ​states​ ​Alexander conquered​ ​the​ ​more​ ​known​ ​and​ ​learned​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​was.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​song​ ​by​ ​Iron​ ​Maiden “Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great,”​ ​a​ ​verse​ ​talks​ ​about​ ​how​ ​he​ ​had​ ​so​ ​much​ ​land​ ​and​ ​he​ ​spread​ ​Hellenistic culture​ ​far​ ​and​ ​wide.​ ​Every​ ​city​ ​or​ ​state​ ​that​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​under​ ​Alexander’s​ ​rule​ ​was​ ​exposed​ ​to Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​and​ ​most​ ​embraced​ ​it.​ ​A​ ​map​ ​shows​ ​all​ ​of​ ​Alexander’s​ ​empire​ ​or​ ​states aligned​ ​with​ ​Alexander​ ​and​ ​the​ ​area​ ​of​ ​land​ ​is​ ​over​ ​thousands​ ​of​ ​miles​ ​big.​ ​An​ ​empire​ ​that​ ​big with​ ​a​ ​new​ ​culture​ ​will​ ​be​ ​spread​ ​very​ ​quickly.​ ​If​ ​another​ ​group​ ​of​ ​people​ ​passes​ ​through​ ​the area​ ​and​ ​picks​ ​up​ ​on​ ​some​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cultures​ ​and​ ​brings​ ​it​ ​back​ ​to​ ​their​ ​hometown,​ ​the​ ​culture​ ​will​ ​be span​ ​across​ ​many​ ​different​ ​people.​ ​“Alexander,​ ​by​ ​founding​ ​more​ ​than​ ​seventy​ ​cities​ ​among​ ​the barbarian​ ​tribes…”(Document​ ​2).​ ​Alexander​ ​founded​ ​cities​ ​and​ ​with​ ​those​ ​new​ ​cities​ ​came​ ​more people​ ​learning​ ​about​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​and​ ​practicing​ ​it.​ ​Alexander​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​stretch Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​to​ ​different​ ​areas​ ​all​ ​over​ ​the​ ​world.

Alexander​ ​the​ ​Great​ ​was​ ​just​ ​easily​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​best​ ​conquerors.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​nor​ ​a​ ​villain​ ​or a hero.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​violent​ ​at​ ​times​ ​to​ ​get​ ​what​ ​he​ ​wanted,​ ​but​ ​he​ ​was​ ​also​ ​an​ ​intelligent​ ​military leader​ ​and​ ​circulated​ ​the​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​all​ ​over​ ​the​ ​globe.​ ​Alexander​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​affect​ ​the way​ ​we​ ​live​ ​today.​ ​Our​ ​culture​ ​today​ ​is​ ​very​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Hellenistic​ ​culture​ ​Alexander expanded​ ​all​ ​over​ ​the​ ​world.​ ​Although​ ​he​ ​was​ ​villainous​ ​at​ ​times,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​also​ ​good​ ​and​ ​proved he​ ​was.​ ​Alexander​ ​was​ ​able​ ​to​ ​impact​ ​our​ ​lives​ ​today​ ​by​ ​being​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​best,​ ​if​ ​not​ ​the​ ​best, conquerors​ ​in​ ​history.

Alexander the Great: Expository Essay

Alexander the Great was one of history’s most successful military leaders. His empire extended from western Greece to eastern India. Tyre was a mighty city-state located off the coast of modern-day Lebanon. The Tyrians became very wealthy through maritime commerce and the production of purple dye from Murex shellfish. They established, among others, Carthage on the coast of North Africa, which later grew into a maritime superpower. Tyre was comprised of two sections. Old Tyre was situated on Lebanon’s coast. On a small island 800 meters (874 yards) from the coast, New Tyre was constructed. The island was heavily fortified with thick walls and towers of great height. New Tyre was thought to be impregnable. Alexander the Great, however, disagreed.

Tyre refused Alexander the Great’s surrender

In 333 B.C., Alexander the Great defeated Darius III and advanced rapidly toward Egypt. To the young king, coastal cities such as Sidon and Byblos submitted.

The Tyrians, however, were confident that their walls could withstand any army.

Tyre’s walls were 45 meters (150 feet) tall. In addition, they anticipated assistance from Carthage, their former colony and a formidable ally. Also, King Darius III of Persia lost a battle but not the war.

Since Tyre served as a Persian naval port, it posed a threat to Alexander’s rear. Alexander needed to conquer this formidable city. When Alexander approached the Tyrians with a surrender proposal, his envoys were murdered. Alexander told the Tyrians that they may be on an island, but he would ensure that they become a part of the continent.

The historic siege of Tyre

Alexander’s forces surprised the Tyrians by constructing two enormous causeways leading to New Tyre. Thus, Alexander was able to position siege towers within firing range of the city walls. The engineers of Alexander constructed two enormous siege towers. The towers measured 50 meters (160 feet) in height. They were constructed from wood and protected from fire with rawhides. On top of the towers were catapults and ballistae.

The Tyrians counterattacked by loading an old barge with incendiary materials, including dry wood, sulfur, and oil, and crashing it into the besieging towers, causing them to catch fire and collapse. In addition, the Tyrian ships constantly harassed the workers constructing the causeways.

In addition, the progress was slowed by Arabic raids on Alexander’s workers gathering wood for the siege in the nearby mountains. Alexander, a man incapable of being deterred by such obstacles, adapted. He led a punitive expedition into the mountains to eliminate Arabic tribesmen and ensure a steady supply of wood. Alexander, realizing the conquest of Tyre was impossible without control of the seas, traveled north to Byblos and Sidon to assemble a navy.

The Phoenicians of Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad furnished him with eighty war galleys manned by skilled crews. Hearing of Alexander’s string of military victories, the king of Cyprus sent him 120 galleys. Twenty-three additional galleys arrived from Greece. Alexander’s fleet grew from zero to 223 warships overnight, allowing him to blockade Tyre by sea.

Tyre was conquered seven months later.

Alexander the Great’s new navy compelled the Tyrian ships to remain in their harbors, protected by the city walls. The island’s causeways have been completed. The city’s walls were bombarded as siege towers were constructed. Alexander also laid siege to the city from his ships. After several attempts, his forces discovered weaknesses in the southern city walls. After seven months of siege, the walls of New Tyre were breached, and the Greeks and Macedonians wreaked havoc on the city, as was typical following lengthy sieges.

Women in Tyria were raped. During the siege, over 6,000 Tyrians were killed, 2,000 were crucified on the beach, and 30,000 were sold as slaves.

The city of Tyre was destroyed.

Supposedly, Alexander’s forces lost only 400 men. Thus, Alexander the Great sent a clear message to other powerful Mediterranean cities: ‘Join me, and you will prosper; resist, and I will raze you to the ground.’

Conclusion

What then occurred when an unstoppable conqueror attacked an impregnable city? Tyre’s siege became legendary. Before the siege, Tyre was an island; afterward, it became a peninsula. Alexander took seven months to conquer Tyre, demolish the city, and kill or enslave its citizens. Alexander founded Alexandria in Egypt because his empire required a powerful trading hub and Tyre had been destroyed.

Alexandria became a sophisticated and wealthy capital, with the Tower of Alexandria, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, and the Library of Alexandria, one of the greatest libraries of antiquity, as its crowning achievements.

Alexander the Great: Expository Essay

Alexander the Great was one of history’s most successful military leaders. His empire extended from western Greece to eastern India. Tyre was a mighty city-state located off the coast of modern-day Lebanon. The Tyrians became very wealthy through maritime commerce and the production of purple dye from Murex shellfish. They established, among others, Carthage on the coast of North Africa, which later grew into a maritime superpower. Tyre was comprised of two sections. Old Tyre was situated on Lebanon’s coast. On a small island 800 meters (874 yards) from the coast, New Tyre was constructed. The island was heavily fortified with thick walls and towers of great height. New Tyre was thought to be impregnable. Alexander the Great, however, disagreed.

Tyre refused Alexander the Great’s surrender

In 333 B.C., Alexander the Great defeated Darius III and advanced rapidly toward Egypt. To the young king, coastal cities such as Sidon and Byblos submitted.

The Tyrians, however, were confident that their walls could withstand any army.

Tyre’s walls were 45 meters (150 feet) tall. In addition, they anticipated assistance from Carthage, their former colony and a formidable ally. Also, King Darius III of Persia lost a battle but not the war.

Since Tyre served as a Persian naval port, it posed a threat to Alexander’s rear. Alexander needed to conquer this formidable city. When Alexander approached the Tyrians with a surrender proposal, his envoys were murdered. Alexander told the Tyrians that they may be on an island, but he would ensure that they become a part of the continent.

The historic siege of Tyre

Alexander’s forces surprised the Tyrians by constructing two enormous causeways leading to New Tyre. Thus, Alexander was able to position siege towers within firing range of the city walls. The engineers of Alexander constructed two enormous siege towers. The towers measured 50 meters (160 feet) in height. They were constructed from wood and protected from fire with rawhides. On top of the towers were catapults and ballistae.

The Tyrians counterattacked by loading an old barge with incendiary materials, including dry wood, sulfur, and oil, and crashing it into the besieging towers, causing them to catch fire and collapse. In addition, the Tyrian ships constantly harassed the workers constructing the causeways.

In addition, the progress was slowed by Arabic raids on Alexander’s workers gathering wood for the siege in the nearby mountains. Alexander, a man incapable of being deterred by such obstacles, adapted. He led a punitive expedition into the mountains to eliminate Arabic tribesmen and ensure a steady supply of wood. Alexander, realizing the conquest of Tyre was impossible without control of the seas, traveled north to Byblos and Sidon to assemble a navy.

The Phoenicians of Byblos, Sidon, and Arwad furnished him with eighty war galleys manned by skilled crews. Hearing of Alexander’s string of military victories, the king of Cyprus sent him 120 galleys. Twenty-three additional galleys arrived from Greece. Alexander’s fleet grew from zero to 223 warships overnight, allowing him to blockade Tyre by sea.

Tyre was conquered seven months later.

Alexander the Great’s new navy compelled the Tyrian ships to remain in their harbors, protected by the city walls. The island’s causeways have been completed. The city’s walls were bombarded as siege towers were constructed. Alexander also laid siege to the city from his ships. After several attempts, his forces discovered weaknesses in the southern city walls. After seven months of siege, the walls of New Tyre were breached, and the Greeks and Macedonians wreaked havoc on the city, as was typical following lengthy sieges.

Women in Tyria were raped. During the siege, over 6,000 Tyrians were killed, 2,000 were crucified on the beach, and 30,000 were sold as slaves.

The city of Tyre was destroyed.

Supposedly, Alexander’s forces lost only 400 men. Thus, Alexander the Great sent a clear message to other powerful Mediterranean cities: ‘Join me, and you will prosper; resist, and I will raze you to the ground.’

Conclusion

What then occurred when an unstoppable conqueror attacked an impregnable city? Tyre’s siege became legendary. Before the siege, Tyre was an island; afterward, it became a peninsula. Alexander took seven months to conquer Tyre, demolish the city, and kill or enslave its citizens. Alexander founded Alexandria in Egypt because his empire required a powerful trading hub and Tyre had been destroyed.

Alexandria became a sophisticated and wealthy capital, with the Tower of Alexandria, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, and the Library of Alexandria, one of the greatest libraries of antiquity, as its crowning achievements.

Greatest Of World Conquerors: Alexander The Great Leadership

The reign of Alexander the III as king of Macedon (336 to 323 BC) overthrew the Persian empire, carried Macedonian arms through his ruthless acts of having one ideology, to conquer, India and built the fundamentals during the Hellenistic period of territorial kingdoms. His phenomenal success had many defining factors as to why and how he was ‘Great’, however his ruthlessness almost ultimately determined his success. Alexander’s logical way of thinking and unique planning strategies revolved around his ruthless leadership style, which exemplified him as a historical figure from the ancient world. After his father’s assassination, he murdered his rivals through ruthless acts and stole the crown to be king. In his childhood, his mother, Olympias, had a major role through her ways of teaching and the false accusations about Alexander’s father, Zeus-Ammon being his father and not Phillip II of Macedon. These acts contributed to Alexander conquering most of the Mediterranean, most of Europe, and the borders of India, thus single-handedly creating the Macedonian Empire, under his leadership.

Alexander the III was charismatic and ruthless considering his men were inspired through his acts of a leader and followed Alexander through hardships and were willing to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, during the process. Elizabeth Carney, the author ‘Olympias mother of Alexander the Great, is a Professor of Ancient History at Clemson University in South Carolina, as well as she’s an author of Women and Monarchy in Ancient Macedonia. She states Alexander the Great’s upbringing was affected by his mother, Olympias, through her pitiless attitude and a savage woman. His ruthlessness during wars and against his opponents may have derived from his mother, Olympias, ‘Modern conventional wisdom knows Olympias as a pitiless and savage woman, a practitioner of barbaric Dionysiac rites compelled by jealousy and ruthless ambition to the murder of her rivals in order to secure her son’s succession to the throne of Macedon.’ (Carney, 2006). Carney explains his mother was a big influence on Alexander’s success and through her power-hungry and bloodthirsty attitude, it may have been inherited into Alexander’s way of leading and, Brooke Allen, a critically acclaimed writer (for major titles such as The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and The New York Times), states that he was a ‘ruthless, ambitious, self-centered prig’ through his youth and approaching his adulthood, became of a man ruthlessly dedicated to his own ambition, resolute to the belief he was invincible. The idea of Alexander believing in himself being invincible may have derived from his mother’s lies of expressing Zeus-Ammon, ruler of the Olympian gods, being his father instead of Phillip II, his biological father. Through this belief, his mindset was essentially set under believing he was a son of a god, (not a literal god walking on earth, as this notion would be hysterical to the Greeks who had known of him) as he presented himself as godlike against opponents he’d conquered, to whom this notion may not have been so peculiar.

Alexander the III’s unique strengths as a military leader possess uniqueness compared to other historical figures. His lust for his ruthlessness is evident through Quintus Curtius’ account on his document describing the fears of the Macedonian troops as they reach India. His unwillingness towards his soldiers only ended in deaths to pave a path for a way for him to the ocean, only to see more enemies. Quintus Curtius portrays the unjust treatments given by Alexander himself however the succession of his ruthlessness ultimately thrived him. Arrian, a Greek historian, exemplifies Alexander’s aims as a leader showing an undeniable portrayal of the type of leader Alexander was, ‘he would always have searched beyond for something unknown, and if there had been no other competition, he would have competed against himself.’ (Arrian, 140 AD) Arrian claims that, with against no competition, Alexander would’ve competed against himself. This source alone validates the classification of the word ‘great’ in his name exemplifying, even if he knocked and destroyed everything in his path, he would still have competed against himself to feed his insatiable lust for glory. Quintus Curtius and Arrian identify the unquenchable behavior of Alexander’s ruthlessness on the battlefield. The evaluation of the two sources complements his unique strengths as a military leader that reflects on his ruthlessness. Brooke Allen states that Alexander’s necessary strictness to achieve total victory coincides with his ruthlessness in a unique fashion.

The unification of Alexander’s ruthless leadership style alongside his tactical skills on the battlefield accounted majorly for his success. He was widely opinionated as a ruthless man who’d only quenched his thirst for conquest, however, others saw him as a person of intelligence and “statesmanlike vision” (Hammond Preface). In N.G.L. Hammond’s book, ‘The Genius of Alexander the Great, attempts to refrain from writing from his own perspective and opinion about Alexander and more widely focuses on the few surviving narratives about Alexander’s achievements in an unbiased manner.