Do you think that Viloent figures in History ( Alexender) are considered greater than less violent ones ?

Question

If so what are the possible reasons

Answer 1

I think this is true when you go back as far as Alexander - or indeed Rome. The reason is because those who were violent left more of a mark on history than did those who may have espoused non-violence. History from those times is the history of kings and emperors, most of whom got to be such by violence. Furthermore there was no democratic politics (as we know it) for others to make a mark in. I don't think it is as true in more recent history. For one, we have more sources. We know more about people who did non-violent things - Florence Nightingale as only one example. Also the rise in democratic, party, politics has given far more people the chance to 'have their say'. Historians have also chosen to look at things other than just kings and battles.

Answer 2

Do you mean was he more violent than the others and that is what made him great? I dont know that is a pretty crazy way to phrase that. But I will try, Alexander was the Great because of his accomplishments on conquering territory for Mesopotamia, he grouped Persia, Greece, Egypt etc., with his country and made an Empire through conquest he attained all of this, and certainly he was a war lord and had to be to beable to achieve all of that. Julius Caesar was violent but again he was a war lord as well, and achieved his territories for Rome the same way . In order to bring civilization into a realm of peace it sometimes takes an assemblance of order dictated by the force of progress for this earth to survive. Sometimes the old must be swept away and the unwittingness and unwillingness to adapt brings violence for the change. It is a way that has been forever, why? Human nature. If you are a leader of a mass amount of people and you need to achieve a goal for survival you will adapt to violence in a gruesome way sometimes, because it goes with the territory.

Answer 3

No I don't think Violent figures in History are considered greater than non-violent ones. As great as people see Alexander the Great and the like I believe a certain person we call today as Jesus is listed above all of them.

Good Luck!!!

Answer 4

in a way yes.especially if u are talking about the ancient times.back then the ppl were appreciating the warriors,the conquerors,in a word:violent ppl.(remember the romans were watching the gladiators fighting and killing one another;and their ancestors,the etruscs,practiced something similar)

if u are talking about how alexander was called "the great" he was called like this for his conquests,for his military genius,for his strategies, and even maybe for being son of zeus.

the violent ppl are better known than the less violent,cause they stand out in bold relief by their battles,conquests,and they are considered bravest and greater.

Answer 5

No, Not at all. Even though they may be called Great for their conquests of Countries they are remembered for wrong reasons. It is always the good deeds of benevolent people like Gandhiji, or Mother Theresa remain greater in the minds of people.

Answer 6

If you are referring to the ancient times when people revered and respected heroes who were ruthless murderers you are possibly right ,but in recent times when people are surrounded by violence and unreasonable killings the real heroes are those you stand by values of non-violence and peace.

Answer 7

Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are examples, who contributed more to the human freedom and welfare than any violent act.

Answer 8

People are attracted by power. Power is almost always connected to violence. Rarely anyone who is interested in Hitler or Stalin would say they are great, but they still attracted to them.

Answer 9

You know how they say:

''Kill one man and you are a criminal***Kill an army of men and you are a hero***Kill them all and you are the son of Zeus!''...this would have probably been the motto of Alexander.