There is no question that the man was a strategic and tactical genius, but given that he was responsible for more deaths than anyone in history until the times of Gengis and Hitler/Stalin is it appropriate to exalt him with the title "Great"?
2007-03-21 10:33:18 · 20 answers · asked by Chrispy 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
At his time he was really GREAT as it is well said Be a Roman when you are in Rome !!!!
2007-03-21 10:38:02 · answer #1 · answered by cabridog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great is nothing more then a title. But, if you measure greatness by things he accomplished then yes he was great.
Alexander was probably one of the greatest military leaders to ever walk the earth. Most of our military tactics we use today are based on his tactics and troop movements. A lot, can be learned from his military style.
Also, Alexander is responsible for the Hellenistic Age. Known in the Zoroastrian Middle Persian work Arda Wiraz NÄmag as "the accursed Alexander" due to his conquest of the Persian Empire and the destruction of its capital Persepolis.
By the way he was Greek not Roman as a previous post eludes to.
2007-03-21 14:41:33 · answer #2 · answered by L3THAL_INJ3CTION 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Several things changed because of him.
1) The world powers shifted from being dominated by the east to being dominated by the west. Think before Alexander, Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylonian Empire, Achaemenid Persian Empire. After Alexander, Greece, Rome, Britain, etc.
2) He paved the way for Christianity (although not necessarily a "Great" thing) by expanding Greek culture and thought throughout the east.
2007-03-21 23:29:07 · answer #3 · answered by Isaac Brock 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are misunderstanding how the term "great" can be used. Something can be great, but not necessarily good. Alexander was a powerful, (ie:great) man, but some things he did weren't okay in my opinion. Great merely corresponds to greatness, success and power, not necessarily to the moral character of the person involved.
2007-03-21 10:39:05 · answer #4 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's put it like this. It did not take Alexander four long years to sort out Iraq/Iran - he utterly destroyed the Persian Empire. Time for another bash at it if you ask me. The Empire of Evil.
2007-03-22 08:45:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
his accomplishments make him great because of the overwhelming odds he had to overcome to accomplish them.
this is true regardless of what the consequences of his accomplishments were.
lets not forget at the time warfare and battle were a way of life, they would not have been seen as wrong, the Persians, against whom he fought, were demonised and hated for good reason hence killing great swarms of them would have made him 'great' im many ways.
However today with our more 'morale' opinions we see him as great purely because of his tactical genius, not because of the results of that genius.
2007-03-21 10:57:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i have read about Alexander and to me one thing that is not said much about him is that he was a tyrant. A tyrant who ordered the genocide of a people because they stole his horse. so he was like all military men a genius in battle but a tyrant at heart.
2007-03-22 06:14:37 · answer #7 · answered by BUST TO UTOPIA 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler and Stalin did great things too. Horrible, but great.
2007-03-22 05:30:01 · answer #8 · answered by fast&furious 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a very ruthless leader with great power but I think I would of preferred Alexanders Ragtime Band to rule me.
2007-03-21 11:08:26 · answer #9 · answered by Sunny Day 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The time he was around Yes he was one of the Great.
2007-03-25 07:14:31 · answer #10 · answered by Ollie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you do not want to call him great, then most likely there are zero people who would qualify for the title.
2007-03-21 12:04:38 · answer #11 · answered by Fred 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋