The figure of Alexander the Great gained great fame in Western history due to his extensive conquests and undeniable victories. The image of Alexander is still widely used in legends and myths, which is why he was assigned the label of “the first true superhero of Western civilization”. Nevertheless, not everyone agrees with the reputation given to Alexander, refuting the heroism of his motives and the ability to govern the state. Thus, despite the irrefutable victories of Alexander the Great, it is difficult to call him the first true superhero of Western civilization because of the methods to which he resorted.
Firstly, Alexander’s reputation was deserved mainly due to major territorial expansion. One of the key battles of Alexander the Great was the conquest of Persia. He was a brave young man and often took part in battles himself, becoming one with his army. Alexander’s resources were much less significant than those of his opponent. Having a weaker fleet and a precarious financial situation, he risked enough by attacking Tyre (Spielvogel, 2020, p. 93). However, he managed to win, and victory in the battle revealed his magnificent military talent and strategic skills, which determined his title as the first superhero of Western civilization. Subsequently, he also managed to significantly expand his territories, which complemented his heroic image in the eyes of the people.
Secondly, under Alexander, Greek culture developed vastly, becoming one of the key cultures in the Western world of that era. Alexander’s intellectual talent was manifested not only in matters of warfare but also in the concept of universal humanity, which he tried to expand (Spielvogel, 2020, p. 96). Uniting Macedonians, Greeks, and Persians, he created a new era of Hellenism (Spielvogel, 2020, p. 96), distinguished by the spread of Greek culture far beyond the country’s borders. Alexander the Great firmly cemented his big name in history and elevated the nation for many years, confirming his reputation.
In my opinion, the label of the first superhero of Western Civilization cannot be assigned to Alexander the Great, given the sacrifices he resorted to during his conquests. Alexander’s generalship talent cannot be denied, but his authoritarianism and cruelty are difficult to associate with the title. Breaking the reputation of a “superhero”, it is worth paying attention to how historians reveal the motives for developing Greek culture in different ways. Thus, some see the reason for the spread as the desire to strengthen the power and create an autocratic monarchy (Spielvogel, 2020, p. 96). During his campaigns and conquests, the king thoughtlessly risked the lives of his soldiers for completely selfish reasons (Spielvogel, 2020, p. 96), not thinking about the welfare of the people under his command. He brutally killed indigenous peoples and neglected administrative duties, which eventually weakened his kingdom (Spielvogel, 2020, p. 96). From my point of view, a person with the title of a “superhero” cannot resort to such methods even to expand the territory.
From all of the above, it follows that Alexander the Great is indeed a significant figure in the development of Western civilization. He contributed to securing his name for many years, not disdaining the cruelest methods to achieve his goals. However, historians evaluate Alexander’s actions differently despite all the conquests, which gives a more objective assessment of his actions. Thus, the “superheroism” of Alexander the Great is a question in the context of modern historiography.
Reference
Spielvogel, J. J. (2020). Western Civilization: Volume I: To 1715. Cengage Learning.
The image provided is identified as the sculpture of Alexander the Great. The statue played an essential role in ushering in the Hellenistic Era. Being one of the Hellenistic Era’s most prominent figures, Alexander the Great is easily recognizable. Moreover, the sculpture on the picture has been well conserved, which definitely helps with its identification. The statue of Alexander the Great depicts a king, warrior, conqueror, and brilliant tactician from Greek’s Minoan and Mycenaean eras.
Object
The object has a typical form, size, texture, and colour for sculptures in the Hellenistic Era. The original sculpture belongs to the Israel Museum collection, with all rights reserved to the Israel Antiquities Authority (Slapak) (Romano et al., 2021). It was made out of marble during the reign of Alexander the Great and was initially found in Greece. Plutarch (1906) noted how Lysippus made statues ‘that gave the best representation of Alexander’s person’ (Alexander chapter). The era is unknown because it could be any date after 300 BC.
Alexander the Great was famous for his victory at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC. He also conquered many other territories and cities, including Egypt, Persia, and India (Alexander the Great, 2020). Thus, the object is a tribute to a great leader and commander, commemorating what Alexander achieved with his army by emerging victorious over other countries. There was a great deal of political and military tension at the time, and if Alexander had not been victorious, it would have undermined his reputation as a great king. Artists who usually made sculptures of the Macedonian conqueror were Greeks. The object is most probably the head of one of many statues Alexander commissioned from them.
Subject and Style
The statue is stylised to show how physically big Alexander was. The sculpture’s facial features and neck muscles are very detailed to highlight his assertive demeanor (Romano et al., 2021). The object portrays the conqueror as though he is alive and looks at the viewer. His hair is thick and healthy, with curly locks sticking out in various directions. In the sculpture, Alexander looks like he is a well-padded4 and handsome man in the prime of his life. These ‘are all typical features of Alexander’ that various sculptors used for his depiction (Head of a statue of Alexander the Great, n.d., para. 2). Successors of Lysippus ‘and his friends used … to imitate, the inclination of his head a little on one side towards his left shoulder, and his melting eye’ (Plutarch, 1906, Alexander chapter). It looks like the people who made the object tried to portray an ideal of what a young Greek man should look like rather than an actual historical figure. As such, the conqueror is youthful and energetic, and, looking at bodies that have been made for these heads, Alexander has an athletic and healthy body, robust stature, and steady stance.
Significance
The significance of the sculpture of the head of Alexander the Great is not proven. The statue needs reconstructive measures to understand the original context and effect of the piece. The placement, use, and economics of this item are not precise. It seems that only a few details, such as period, are known for sure. As a result, only assumptions about what the object may imply can be made based on other items of the same era and region.
In this period, art was not solely considered a form of entertainment. It affected political, cultural, and social levels in many ways (Smith, 2017). Some of these levels would have motivated individuals to invest their time and resources into creating items like this. The sculpture of Alexander the Great is an example of placement, activities, and material in the Hellenistic Era. It was made from marble following critical considerations of ancient Greek artistry and used in Hellenistic Greece.
Plutarch (1906) Plutarch’s lives, vol. 4. Translated by J. Dryden. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Romano, I. B., Tambakopoulos, D., & Maniatis, Y. (2021) A Roman Portrait of Alexander the Great from Beth Shean. “The most important Hellenistic sculpture found in the Holy Land”. Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology, 10, pp. 2-28.
Smith, R. R. (2017) Hellenistic sculpture under the roman empire: Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, pp. 253-260.
Alexander III of Macedon was a Greek king. He is popularly referred to as Alexander the great. He is recorded to be the most celebrated member amongst those of the Argead Dynasty. He established one of the largest known empires of the time (in the ancient history). He was born in 356 BC and was a great student of the infamous philosopher, Aristotle. He succeeded his father, Phillip II Macedon in 336 BC after being assassinated; Alexander the Great reigned between 336 and 323 BC, inclusive. Even though his reign was short, the cultural effects of his conquest lived for many centuries and even todate, his legacy is still evident.
What made Alexander the Great a legend in history?
Alexander the great is actually amongst the most enthralling personalities in the history of mankind. He was involved in conquest of many territories. What makes him greatly admired is t he fact that, besides his own father’s territory, he conquered many territories on his own with the help of his strong army. The sight of the assassination of his father is said to have possibly haunted him for the rest of his life, both as a king and during his private life. After the assassination of his father and the subsequent ascension to kingship, he learnt not to trust anyone including the personally appointed bodyguard (Hammond 27).
One of his most important gifts was his oratory skills which any leader who wants to succeed must possess. He managed to solicit for the support and good will of his community members (the kingdom subjects) who were followers of his late father. In fact, he pursued the policies of his father besides coming up with his own (Hammond 27). The greatness of Alexander the Great could be realized during his childhood; his father bought a stallion that later came to prove untamable. As a young boy, Alexander started a 126 year long relationship with the stallion; during the period Alexander managed to tame it hence attracting the compliment of his father. In fact the father said that the kingdom was small for him (Hammond 1). His father’s compliment could have been one of the motivations that made him pursue greatness by conquering many territories. For instance, the father told him, “My boy, seek a kingdom to match yourself, Macedonia is not large enough to hold you.”
In 340 B.C, he was appointed a regent while his father embarked on a mission to fight rebels who threatened the kingdom. During the periods in which he was serving as a regent, Alexander the Great managed to thwart a rebellion advanced by the Maedi of northern Macedonia; Alexander stopped the revolt and immediately named the city after himself to honor himself. One of the legends about Alexander the Great as a king was that in 333 B.C, he succeeded in undoing the Gordian knot in Gordium, Turkey; the knot had been tied by king Midas, a very wealthy king. It is stated that prophesy was made about the person who would untie or undo the knot; the said prophesy stated that the one who would undo the knot would rule Asia in its entirety. It was Alexander the Great who managed to undo the knot. This could explain the reason he zealously conquered many kingdoms and established himself as one of the most respected and feared kings of the time.
As a king of Macedonia, Alexander the Great started facing certain stiff rebellion. He thwarted the rebellion and sentenced many of the captured rebels to death. He also physically participated in war and managed to defeat his enemies; he gave his troops instructions of what to do during the war. He never lost any war and his lost fewer of his people through war than his opponents (Hammond 34). Moreover, Alexander the Great managed to defeat Persia which proved impossible to his father. This might have also stunned many people especially owing to his tender age yet he already conquered a territory that took his father many years but never succeeded in conquering. One of the most important factors that led to his successful capturing of the territory was his ability to inspire his soldiers; Alexander was a great inspiration to his troops by personally and physically becoming part of the wars against the enemies. He was prepared to win with his people of perish with them, but he was always sure of winning (Hammond 44). It is argued that his lieutenants at one time persuaded him to stay and administer from the capital, Babylon, and consolidate his power, but he refused and instead preferred being on the back of his horse holding sword in his hand and fighting the enemies. During his time, it was rare to find a king being in the forefront leading his troops in the fight against the enemies.
Alexander is also admired for his war tactics. He used varied tactics to attack and defeat his enemies. For instance, Hammond (p. 44) states that Alexander’s matching speed allowed to pin down Thebes the day after a long match with his troops; this deterred the potential helpers from Athens and other allies to his enemies. He is described as one of the most important qualities a leader like Alexander the Great. It was courage that enabled him to overthrow the Persian Empire and subsequently extending his authority and rule from Greece to Egypt. It is argued that his achievements laid a foundation for Hellenistic world and also the spread of Christianity. Available literature indicates that the spread of Christianity and the writing of New Testament in Greek were as a direct powerful influence he had in his kingdom and other conquered territories.
Conclusion
Alexander the Great was an admired leader who succeeded where most kings could not succeed. He inherited his father’s kingdom and vowed to follow his policies, the father was assassinated. Even though he inherited his father’s kingdom and became its new king, he was not happy that he inherited everything from him. He embarked on capturing new territories and putting then under his own rule. Moreover, he was an inspiration leader to most of those who lived at the time. He used to lead his troops to war against the enemy and preferred to fight rather than just sit in Babylon and issue commands. This scenario exhibited his courage and determination to prove he was the most powerful king of the time. As a king, Alexander the Great managed to win the support of his subjects, especially the soldiers which gave him great confidence and courage to fight and conquer his kingdom’s enemies (Hammond, pp23-34).
Reference
Hammond, Nick. The Genius of Alexander the Great. New York: UNC Press Books, 1998.
Alexander the great was not given the name out of nothing; in fact he earned the name from his numerous victories over Greece, Egypt, and India. Born in 356BC in Macedonia, he inherited his father throne after he died in war. Just like his father (King Philip) he proved to be a great warrior and led his army to conquer the whole world, at least the world known to the Greeks. His father had built the foundation of a well oiled army which Alexander used to extend the rule of Greek/Macedonia to extent unimaginable to king Philip. Alexander had many qualities attributed to him. Alexander took pride in conquering nations and it is said that he once wept since there was no more land for him to conquer. He was brave, radiant, dynamic and a risk taker. The other character that stood out about Alexander is that he was also a thinker. Although many philosophies disparage his philosophy as condescending and derisive Alexander was a firm believer of stoicism.
One might think that Alexander the great must have been a huge person but as a matter of fact, he was about 4 ft 6in. He conquered lands like Egypt, Persia, India and Greece and his indeed was the greatest emperor the world had ever seen. He was merciful to those who recognized his might and equally ruthless to anyone who dared refute or overthrow him. His people loved him and they followed him through battles that they would otherwise not have approved.
You must not think of God as an authoritarian ruler, but you should consider him as a common father, so that your conduct resembles the uniform behavior of brothers who belong to the same family. For my part, I consider all, whether they be white or black, equal. And I would like you to be not only subject of my common-wealth, but also participants and partners. You should regard the Oath we have taken tonight as a Symbol of Love.” Alexander III (the Great) – Opis (324 BC).
Stoicism school of thought originated from Zeno. His philosophy purported that the world was governed by a single divine plan, which dictated our destiny. He added that in order to achieve happiness in the universe one had the obligation to exercise self discipline and accept life as it came in order to experience calm and freedom in exchange hence happiness.
Stoicism was the philosophy shared among the elites during the Hellenistic period. The stoics held very peculiar believes for instance, they believed that a person who had undergone moral and intellectual perfection would not feel emotions like jealousy, fear, lust, among other feelings considered to arise false judgments. Furthermore they emphasized that a sage (person who has attained moral and intellectual perfection) should be immune to adversely and instead take pride in virtue as they only source of true happiness and calm.
Stoicism proposed that virtue is inborn and human beings had to toil in order to realize its existence. They emphasized virtuous living and human beings evolved with time to be naturally motivated to act in proper ways so that we do not harm ourselves. Stoicism emphasized that people shun things that might be detrimental to the preservation of their natural state in his case virtue. (Lerodiakonou, 72).
Work cited
Baltzly, Dirk. 1997. Ataktos: a dialogue on Stoic ethics. Web. (This site provides information on stoicism in a different fashion. The content is in form of dialogue between an Athenian (Ataktos) and zenus a stoic. In this dialogue one gets insight in to what stoicism is all about. It makes a good read yet in a relaxed manner.)
Baltzly, Dirk. Stoicism. (1996). Web. (This site is rich with information about the philosophy of stoicism. It tells of the ideals held by the stoics, for instance the need to be free from emotions like fear, envy in order to experience true happiness.)
Kreis, Steven. From Polis to Cosmopolis: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. (This site is very helpful in shedding light on the founder of stoicism school of thought. (Zeno). It gives the thoughts that zeno had for example he thought that life followed a determined plan (logos)and that man had no control over it other than cultivate self discipline and acceptance to experience happiness.)
History, Philosophy and Arts of the Ancient and Modern World. Alexander The Great. 2007. Web. (This site provides a comprehensive account of the various faces that Alexander had. It provides great insight of the victories of Alexander as a great leader to his army.)
Nick. Introduction to Alexander the Great: Who was Alexander? And why should he deserve to be called “the Great”? Web. (This site is very helpful to someone who wants to gain knowledge on who Alexander was in terms of his descent, character, victories and romances.)
Lerodiakonou, Katerina. Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 2002. 72. (This book is expresses the emphasis that the stoics had on virtuous living. As put across in the book, stoics believed that virtue was in born and it developed with time.)
In terms of his military mind, combat leadership, and conquest campaign, few monarchs in history can compare to Alexander the Great. By ushering in a new Hellenistic age of Greek culture and influence, the King of Macedon constructed an empire that stretched from Greece and Egypt to the Indian subcontinent, forever changing the ancient world. And all of this by the time he died at the age of 32, raising the question of what Alexander could have accomplished if he had lived longer.
If Alexander had continued east, he would have met the Chinese during their ‘Warring States Period’ and therefore met the mighty Qin State, which would unify all of China a century later. Yet, given the low morale of his army, he was unlikely to have made it to China in the first place (Brooks, 2019). The warriors refused to go any further after years of warfare in foreign regions distant from home.
While incorporating foreigners into Alexander’s administrative and military institutions would have made day-to-day control of his empire easier, it also led to increased resentment and mistrust on behalf of Macedonians. In order to impose his will, Alexander favored harsh punishments, which, combined with his prolongated absences, could not have increased the popularity of the ruler. However, Alexander’s treatment of his childhood friend Harpalus, whom he provided with multiple governmental positions throughout his rule, implies that he wasn’t above letting personal relationships cloud his judgment. This fact, however, is hardly surprising given Alexander’s rapidly deteriorating mental state, who has been grappling with paranoia and isolation in the later years of his rule.
Reference
Brooks, C. (2019). Western Civilization: A Concise History: Volume 1., Christopher Brooks.
The classic film, Alexander the Great (1956), follows the life of Alexander the Great, a successful military commander of all time who had conquered most of the known world by the time of his death at only thirty-three years.
Written, directed, and produced by Robert Rossen, the ambitious film tells of how Alexander managed to create a huge empire that included Macedonia, Egypt, Syria, Persia, and Asia Minor. Some of the actors in the film include Richard Burton (as Alexander the Great), Claire Bloom (as Barsine) Frederic March (as Philip of Macedonia), Danielle Darrieux (as Olympias), and Barry Jones (as Aristotle).
The events depicted in the movie are historically accurate. As is shown in the movie, Alexander was born in Pella in 356 BC when his father, King Philip II of Macedonia, was championing a campaign to take over Olynthus. After giving birth to Alexander, Philip’s II wife, Olympias, persistently claims that he is of divine birth.
Although Philip II accuses her of infidelity, he endeavors to groom Alexander to succeed him. Consequently, he ensures that the young man receives the highest level of education in Greek cultural practices. The famed Greek philosopher Aristotle, who made him to accept that the Greeks were the most civilized, taught him history, mathematics, logic and other subjects.
Alexander’s eager to rule is aroused when his father allows him to rule the city of Pella, the capital of Macedonia. Phillip did this because he was spending too much time in the battlefield. As the first taste of power made the young man to be confident, he soon started to take his father to the wars he was fighting to conquer other areas. For example, in the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC),
Alexander and his father managed to capture the city of Athens. This victory assures Alexander of a great future; however, Philip accuses his wife of infidelity and divorces her and this leads to a chasm in his relationship with his father because his succession is uncertain as some people in the palace thought of him as being an illegitimate child.
When one of Alexander’s friends assassinates Philip II, he ascends to the throne and claims the loyalty of all the Greeks and also assumes all the titles that had been accorded to the late king. After this, driven by a god-like conviction, he embarks on a mission to bring the all region of Asia under his authority. As much as he is not going to live for many years, the extent of his accomplishments is going to be without parallel. The depiction of these events makes the film to be historically accurate.
On the other hand, besides its historical accuracies in depicting the life of Alexander the Great, the film also has some historical inaccuracies. Since the movie is not a historical documentary, the filmmakers added some fiction to it, which makes it historical accuracy questionable. The filmmakers decided to omit some other battles and events that took place during the time, for example, the siege of Tyre.
These were avoided supposedly because of time constraints. Other historical inaccuracies in the film arise from representation that the ancient Macedonian culture was the same with that of other people like the Persians and the portrayal the Alexander’s troops defeated many of their enemies in a single conflict while historical facts show that they had to engage in several fierce battles in order to be victorious.
Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to make the changes from the facts so as to produce the film within their allocated budget, production schedules, availability of actors, and the desire to ensure that the plot supports their own artistic vision. In addition, these changes were to make the film acceptable for the cinemagoers of the 1950s.
Watching the movie enables one to learn about the specific period in history when Macedonian rule was present in huge swathes of Asia. The Macedonian Empire and the Greek culture expanded to other parts of the world because of the mighty influence that Alexander had.
In the huge territories he had conquered, the hybrid Hellenistic culture developed as the Greek culture blended with the local cultures. Even after his death in 323 BC, the areas he had conquered were still under the influence of the Greek culture for the next two hundred to three hundred years.
Through Alexander’s 11-year conquests of the known world, the movie depicts him as one of the most successful military intellects in history. The movie also enables us to learn how the Macedonian people highly esteemed their culture. For example, King Philip II was obliged to divorce his wife because of infidelity issues and Alexander was almost not considered an heir to the throne because he was not a legitimate child.
Although the lavish, historical movie has some historical inaccuracies, this does not qualify it to be a propaganda movie. Alexander the Great is an important historical figure, which the movie succeeds in portraying in his short life, yet well lived.
The film simply presents the facts on the rule of the Macedonian Empire, without attempting to sway the viewers to a particular religious or political way of thinking. The changes from the facts that the filmmakers made in the production of the movie were not aimed to misrepresent the historical truths, but they were included because of the reasons outlined in the earlier sections of the paper.
More so, the filmmakers took three years in researching and developing its screenplay. Could they have devoted this kind of effort so as to produce a propaganda film? In this regard, the filmmakers aimed to represent the life of Alexander the Great as accurately as possible to the cinemagoers of the mid-twentieth century.
The movie shows aspects of stereotyping, especially that concern women and other ethnic groups. In the film, the role of women is misrepresented as secondary and they have no place in the society. For example, King Philip II divorced his wife simply because of the rumors he was hearing without having the facts on the table.
The movie does not show any constructive dialogue between the king and the queen in an attempt to resolve their differences. The movie stereotyped other ethnic groups. It tried to over-represent the Greek culture as if it was the most important culture that existed at that time. The attempts by the producers of the film to simplify the historical facts so as to reduce its length is damaging since it takes the steam out of the beautiful plot of the story that has been developed.
The historical events and the personalities depicted in the movie reflect what is currently happening in our society. Thirst for power is making nations to fight against one another as they seek to expand their boundaries. Infidelity within marriage is a cause of breakup of most marriages today. Stereotyping the minorities or a certain ethnic group is still present in our modern society.
Brutality is also a common occurrence as people are prepared to murder their friends when they want to gain positions in government or in an organization. In addition to the older version of the film, the newer version of the film, Alexander (2004), directed by Oliver Stone is not a remake of the former and it is based on the historical book Alexander the Great authored by Robin Lane Fox.
As much as both the versions of the films are based on the life of Alexander the Great, the newer version has more historically accurate sets, good editing, does not have erratic continuity, and is generally of better technical quality. More so, the newer version concentrates more on Alexander’s youthful life, his relationships with his parents and some of his advisors, and his conquering of Persia and India.
In conclusion, Alexander the Great (1956) depicts the events that took place in the life of the great ruler, Alexander the Great, in the vast Macedonian Empire. Because of his skills and strategies, he managed to conquer the entire known world and influenced them to adopt completely or mingle the Greek culture with theirs. The newer version of the film is considered to have a more in-depth analysis of the life of Alexander.