How Is Alexander The Great Moral
Sara Cordero
11/27/17
P.3
Alexander the Great
Should a man of great morals prioritize himself above others or hold others above himself? Around 300 BCE, King Philip the II of Macedonia had managed to conquer Greece in a series of wars and battles which resulted in a prosperous country that he ruled (Macedonia, 2017). He was later assassinated in 336 BC by one of his seven bodyguards, Pausanians of Orestis (Philip II of Macedon, 2017). Following his death, his son Alexander became the new king at the young age of 20 years old. He not only built a vast empire, but he also went to war with Persia and defeated them. In essence, was Alexander the Great actually a man of great morals? Alexander was an accomplished conqueror but he was in no way a great man of stature. He was very inconsiderate towards his soldiers and often disregarded their feelings with his cockiness and arrogance …show more content…
In document A it states, “...a waterless region without any food. Many people died of during this journey from thirst and starvation.” He continued on this dangerous journey home knowing he wouldn’t have enough food to supply all his men. However, he made them continue on with their journey because that is what he wanted. His men even eventually forced him to turn back after 8 years because it was so unbearable (Background Essay). A real heroic figure would’ve prioritized their soldiers feelings and well-being.
Secondly, Alexander was arrogant and cocky. “Alexander believed himself to be Achilles’s descendant.” (Document A). Alexander also believed “...that he himself was a god.” (Background Essay). How incredibly arrogant and full of yourself do you have to be do have such incredibly high standards for yourself? How does that make him a “great” man? Someone who is known to be “great” normally wouldn’t have an ego the size of Texas. They are much more modest than
11/27/17
P.3
Alexander the Great
Should a man of great morals prioritize himself above others or hold others above himself? Around 300 BCE, King Philip the II of Macedonia had managed to conquer Greece in a series of wars and battles which resulted in a prosperous country that he ruled (Macedonia, 2017). He was later assassinated in 336 BC by one of his seven bodyguards, Pausanians of Orestis (Philip II of Macedon, 2017). Following his death, his son Alexander became the new king at the young age of 20 years old. He not only built a vast empire, but he also went to war with Persia and defeated them. In essence, was Alexander the Great actually a man of great morals? Alexander was an accomplished conqueror but he was in no way a great man of stature. He was very inconsiderate towards his soldiers and often disregarded their feelings with his cockiness and arrogance …show more content…
In document A it states, “...a waterless region without any food. Many people died of during this journey from thirst and starvation.” He continued on this dangerous journey home knowing he wouldn’t have enough food to supply all his men. However, he made them continue on with their journey because that is what he wanted. His men even eventually forced him to turn back after 8 years because it was so unbearable (Background Essay). A real heroic figure would’ve prioritized their soldiers feelings and well-being.
Secondly, Alexander was arrogant and cocky. “Alexander believed himself to be Achilles’s descendant.” (Document A). Alexander also believed “...that he himself was a god.” (Background Essay). How incredibly arrogant and full of yourself do you have to be do have such incredibly high standards for yourself? How does that make him a “great” man? Someone who is known to be “great” normally wouldn’t have an ego the size of Texas. They are much more modest than