English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Isn't it strange how people who start wars and indulge in mass killing are often called "Great" in the history books?

2007-01-08 14:07:52 · 5 answers · asked by In Honor of Moja 4 in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

Alexander " not so great " was a ruthless thief and a robber like every other " great conquerors ". When they wanted to build a palace, and if they have no money, they took few men with swords or guns, marched to their neighbors, killed them ,looted them and took the money. It is not stopped yet ! Hitler did it. Japan Did it. Saddam did it. Are we in Iraq for the oil ? Think about it.

2007-01-08 15:48:35 · answer #1 · answered by ken88dorset 2 · 0 0

So you're thinking maybe he should be called Alexander the Pretty Good, or Alexander the so-so?
Conquering the known world by the time you are 30 is a pretty good feat. Even if the known world in your time is a small one. Unfortunately, like so many leaders, he died before any one had a chance to see if he could hold onto what he'd conquered. This would have determined weather or not he was truly great.

2007-01-08 22:30:48 · answer #2 · answered by Sherlock 3 · 0 0

Though it may seem odd I am a girl and I still greatly respect ATG (Alexander The Great) He did many wonderful things though some involved a great deal of blood loss. Now the movie lacked quite a bit compaired to the real acoplishement of ATG but it was adaquite and I enjoyed it.

2007-01-08 22:14:36 · answer #3 · answered by perpetaully sarcastic 3 · 0 0

"Military victory of such a nature left no lasting civil society in its wake, despite the genius of a twenty-something youth who with no more then fifty thousand men destroyed a corrupt empire of a million square miles and fifty mill lion subjects in less then a decade.
It is due to the charm of Plutarch (his most famous biographer) that wee too are enthralled by the wit, courage, and sheer energy of this eternally young ---great---Alexander, preferring to dwell on what the conqueror professed about humanity rather then what he actually did to humans"

and i refused to watch the movie! Hollywood cant destroy legends by putting a blond Collin Farrell with bad hair extensions as ALEXANDER! i mean seriously!

2007-01-08 22:55:38 · answer #4 · answered by mary eugene 2 · 0 0

The movie is typical Hollywood hogwash. Lots of killing and action with two dimensional characters and not much of a story.

The man was a brilliant military strategist and a capable politician. He unfortunately suffered from egomania and had little sense of any grand scheme beyond his own glory (Hey, nobody's perfect). He did little to ensure the survival of his empire after his death and it quickly crumbled.

2007-01-08 22:13:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers