This blog is intended to enhance your learning experience. We can share thoughts and ideas which, I hope, will expand our perspectives on not only topics in world history but also in our everyday lives. Good luck and have fun!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Exit Ticket - 1/5/09
You learned about Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire in class today. Despite being vastly outnumbered by the Persians, he conquered them in 3 years by the young age of 23. Did this feat make him worthy of the title "the Great?" Explain.
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
no, i dont think he earned the title "great" just because he conquered the persians. while it was amazing that he was able to conquer them so easily and quickly, he died too quickly. we would have had to seen how well he kept his empire together if he is truly to be called "great". it may have been a millitary feat, but thats it. other "great" people srengthened their nations. he just expanded his.
In general Alexander was not great. As a conqueror, yes Alexander was great. He should have been called Alexander The Great Conqueror not just Alexander The Great. To be called great we would have had to see how he ruled his empire. Would it fall or be prosperous? Only then could he have a chance of being called the great, and having him be worthy of the title.
I agree with Alex and Sarah. Concuering the Persians was a incredible accomplishment for someone of his age, but he still had many other flaws in himself. If he was really "the great", he wouldnt have died of alchohal poision. Another one of his flaws was having poor leadership. When Alexander wanted to explore the Indus River, and China, his army refused and made him turn back. If he was really "the great", then his army should have followed him no matter how tired they were and not stopped until they reached China.
I disagree with all the comments. First of all conquering the Persians was an important and very difficult task; also that we conquered it at such a young age. I would like to see any of the people who disagree with me conquer Persia in a couple of years. Granted he didn’t have the best judgment when it came to his personal decisions, but I will cut him some slack because he was a young kid and he was given a lot of power in a short amount of time. I believe he would have been wiser in his personal health if his father had lasted a little longer and Alexander had more time to grow up. But even being young he had succeeded in finishing what his father who had all the experience in the world set out to do. I give Alexander credit for what he did.
Kelly Francisco I believe that Alexander was not worthy of the title the great. Just because he didn't die in battle, and was a good conquerer doesn't mean he was "great". Like Matt sad, his army wanted to turn back at one point, he wasn't a very good leader if his own army didn't want to go proceed. Just because he conquered the Persians doesn't mean hes truly 100% great. Yes, that is a big accomplishment but people everyday do big things, and they don't get the title of the "great". What makes his accomplishments worthy of the title "the great"? He didn't even get to rule, he didn't get to show what he was really all about. That is why i believe he is not worthy of the title, "the great", even though his father Philip failed to do the things he did.
I agree strongly with what Sarah A. stated. Alexander can be considered "great" for his accomplishment of conquering many city states at such a young age, with little experience. Therefore, he was "great" in his ability to conquer. Yet, overall, was Alexander "great" in all that he did as a leader? Alexander The Great implies that this leader was extrodinary in all that he did. When really, he was extrodinary mainly in one area...conquering.
i think he was great because he conquered his anxeity to become an 18 year old king. he also conquered persia in such a little time. he instilled loyalty in his men by connecting with them and fighting alongside them on their weakest flank. the matter of his death, you have all said he died of alcohol poisoning. but the actual cause of his death has many factors including typhus. it doesnt really matter what he didnt do because he died. what he did do was impressive and that earns him the title of great.
No, while conquering the persian empire would make him one of the greatest, it does not make him able to own the title "The Great". Like it was said in class, many people and countries have conquered many places but are not refered to as great. Maybe it would be fair call him "Alexander the Great Leader" because he was held as with high regards as a military leader, but certainly not just "Alexander the Great" because it's too bold a statement.
My man Brian is the only person who I agree with so far. None of you are seeing this guy for who he is. He took his fathers findings and expanded his empire father than his father ever anticipated. And this guy was only a few years older than I myself am. I would like to see anyone here stand up against an army of thousands not to mention leading from the front of the weakest flank. Most of us would shame ourselves with displays of cowardliness and refuse to risk our lives for our country. Yet, Alexander The Great (for he was great) held his head high and defeated the Persians. My final argument is this: he was given the title of “Great” due to his accomplishments in his short life. And if you only live to the age of 33 and you are still considered “Great” by historians you must have done something worthy of greatness in your short time on earth.
Yes, i think this feat would allow him to have the title "the Great" because not everyone can just conquer a huge country in just 3 years even with a low amount of soldiers. The perisians weren't even able to conquer greece and Alexander did which shows how great and smart he was in the areas of military tatics. He deserves the credit for what he did even though its just in one area.
I don't think he deserved his title "The Great". Although he did acomplish an extraordinary amount in his short life especially being so young. And I respect him that he went into battle the way he did, fighting right alongside his men. But the title "The Great" just doesn't seem to fit. I mean he conquered an empire, he's only "The Great" to his people. If you look at it from the persians perspective he wasn't so great. To the persians Alexander and his men were the new "Persians" and the Persians were the Greeks, I don't know about anyone else but Alexander doesn't seem to different from Xerxes and I believe Xerxes was considered evil.
Not precisely, he might of had the right army as well as the right skills and intelligence to conquer Persia, but we never got to the part where we saw his leadership in maintaining control among his new territory.Unfortunately alcohol ended his life leaving everyone else in deep thinking lusting to know how Alexander might of dealt with his empire. Yet in the end he still should be called Alexander the Great. Half of making the "Great" was the conquering part, and the other half was how he maintained control over his empire.
Meg I agree with Brian. Alexander the great earned his title through his unbelievable accomplishments, dignity, pride, and stellar leadership ability. At a very young age he was handed a throne. He was a skilled conquerer and led his army with pride and respect. He earned the love and respect of his men by fighting alongside them. Alexander the Great deserves his title.
justin i think he earned the title "the Great" because at a young age, he had no experience because he was so young. even if he had been older the odds were stacked against him. He was outnumbered 1-4, he still managed to win every battle he fought using great military tactics and strategies to keep the moral of his man high. fighting and working along side his men gained him great loyalty. these combined helped him conquer mass amounts of land known as the Persia. on the other hand, there came be only one great so that is you Mr. Yip.
Katelyn Connor For hundreds of years, Alexander, has held the label of “Great”, recognizing his important climb to success as a general and military leader. When he was young, his use of tactics, ideas and strategies brought remarkable achievements, including the conquest of land. His leadership has been remembered as such because of his unique mark on the expansion of the Macedonian Empire, and the invasion of the Persians. His role as a military leader was unequalled, so the description of “the great” is logical to be presented on him. At the time, people must have thought him worthy, although his character and the way he gained power may bring into question whether the word “Great” should be used because of his brutality in battle, death, and the many executions suffered by his hands. This points to a person who is not good. However, “Great” can mean “bigger or more important than others of the same kind” and “large and impressive”. He is worthy of those descriptions because his military leadership cannot be denied. As he was making his conquests, he was considered “The Great” for his contributions, regardless of the way he achieved success. Time can play a big role in someone’s accomplishments, so some may argue his actions were not noble. True - but “great” does not mean noble. At the height of his success, there was no one to rival him. His accomplishment should allow him to hold the title of “the great”.
No, I do not believe Alexander deserved the title "the great" because although his actions were great, they did not directly reflect him as a person. If a girl drops her books in the hallway and a boy stops to help her pick them up does that mean he is "a nice boy"? His gesture may have been nice but maybe he is a horribly mean person and he just did that one nice thing because he liked the girl. You can not fully understand someone just by their actions. Yes, I do believe the accomplishments Alexander made were great, but I do not believe that these accomplishments make him great. Alexander may have been great, but i do not believe that he deserved the tittle "the great" just based on those actions.
I definately agree with Sarah when she says that Alexander did not deserve the title that he recieved and that he was a great conqueror though. Although the Persians were defeated through miraculous fighting and bravery, he didn't possess the great inspiring leadership that only rare sums possess. He recieved his respect from leading in military conquest and didn't expand on the power of the nation instead he just as Alex put it, expanded the nation.
It might have given him this title, but i think that it was the fact that he united Greece and Macedonia, and followed in his father;s footsteps almost exactly. He was a graet learner and a great person in general too. I think that Alexander might have also earned the title Alexander The Great from other things, that we havn't talked about yeah.
I would think as Alexander both. Meaning in some ways you could describe himself as Alexander the Great and other ways as Alexander, King of Macedon. Such reasons for his greatness would be that he was a brilliant leader and tactician. His ways of being able to defeat the Persians although being impossibly outnumbered is astonishing. Also the fact that he conquered a region almost the size of the United States in only a few years is no small feat. But Alexander was a drunk, both of alcohol and power. He wanted to keep conquering lands until he came to the end of the world. Alexander was a smart tactician, but he was not so smart in coming up with a plan of setting up some sort of government that could handle such a large empire. But he probably thought this was not important even though it was. He thought that conquering was more important which eventually lead to the seperation and destruction of his great empire after he died because all of his generals appointed themselves to lead the empire.
As many of the other people said, they do not think that Alexander should be called "Great", as do I. I believe that Alexander with his army are great in a military/conquering way. Alexander was not good enough to be called Great because he did not live to rule his Persian/Greek empire. Again, i think his army WITH him are great because for such a small army they were able to conquer so much.
I was not in class today but from what I have gathered from Kelly’s extensive blog: Mr. Yip discussed further accomplishments of Alexander. We were asked yet again to analyze the life of Alexander and to tell weather we thought him worthy of his title Alexander “The Great” I agree with Kelley when she said uniting Grease and Persia was a risky business but if it held for longer than it did I am sure that it would be considered an act worthy of greatness. I believe that the man the history books described to us as Alexander is great but who in the world can assure us a flawless account of this mans deeds and thoughts. My answer to the question is that I cannot answer the question. Because in my opinion Greatness should only be bestowed upon a person to whom we know as well as ourselves.
Webster's Dictionary Defines Great as "Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent". If you solely look at his deed, conquering what was at that point, the known world, at the age of twenty three, seems like his name should be more like Alexander the Extraordinary. I'm totally all for what Byran is saying. Ku-dos. In truth, Alexander was narcissistic, superficial, and he had a taste for wine, but he was a genius on the field, and he stayed true to his men, and that loyalty, both ways, was so powerful, that his men recognized his flaws and still loved him. Over two thousand years ago, Alexander lived, and he is STILL remembered. Too all people who say he wasn't great, lets see, if 2000 years from now, YOUR'E remembered, and then MAYBE I'll reconsider my point. Maybe.
I belive he should get the title of GREAT, he carried out his fathers fate. He said it's not just me I'm a part of this army and he was part of every one of them so they all gave him respect. Who would'nt? He was willing to die with all his men. All the goals that he set he completed all of them building up a Greek empire for the ivasions of Persians. Most importantly, he took over King Darius before he reached thirty years old then preseded to mix greek and persian culture. That's why I believe he deserves his name of Great. He also is the creator of several city-states.
23 comments:
no, i dont think he earned the title "great" just because he conquered the persians. while it was amazing that he was able to conquer them so easily and quickly, he died too quickly. we would have had to seen how well he kept his empire together if he is truly to be called "great". it may have been a millitary feat, but thats it. other "great" people srengthened their nations. he just expanded his.
In general Alexander was not great. As a conqueror, yes Alexander was great. He should have been called Alexander The Great Conqueror not just Alexander The Great. To be called great we would have had to see how he ruled his empire. Would it fall or be prosperous? Only then could he have a chance of being called the great, and having him be worthy of the title.
I agree with Alex and Sarah. Concuering the Persians was a incredible accomplishment for someone of his age, but he still had many other flaws in himself. If he was really "the great", he wouldnt have died of alchohal poision. Another one of his flaws was having poor leadership. When Alexander wanted to explore the Indus River, and China, his army refused and made him turn back. If he was really "the great", then his army should have followed him no matter how tired they were and not stopped until they reached China.
I disagree with all the comments. First of all conquering the Persians was an important and very difficult task; also that we conquered it at such a young age. I would like to see any of the people who disagree with me conquer Persia in a couple of years. Granted he didn’t have the best judgment when it came to his personal decisions, but I will cut him some slack because he was a young kid and he was given a lot of power in a short amount of time. I believe he would have been wiser in his personal health if his father had lasted a little longer and Alexander had more time to grow up. But even being young he had succeeded in finishing what his father who had all the experience in the world set out to do. I give Alexander credit for what he did.
Kelly Francisco
I believe that Alexander was not worthy of the title the great. Just because he didn't die in battle, and was a good conquerer doesn't mean he was "great". Like Matt sad, his army wanted to turn back at one point, he wasn't a very good leader if his own army didn't want to go proceed. Just because he conquered the Persians doesn't mean hes truly 100% great. Yes, that is a big accomplishment but people everyday do big things, and they don't get the title of the "great". What makes his accomplishments worthy of the title "the great"? He didn't even get to rule, he didn't get to show what he was really all about. That is why i believe he is not worthy of the title, "the great", even though his father Philip failed to do the things he did.
Sarah Kelley
I agree strongly with what Sarah A. stated. Alexander can be considered "great" for his accomplishment of conquering many city states at such a young age, with little experience. Therefore, he was "great" in his ability to conquer. Yet, overall, was Alexander "great" in all that he did as a leader? Alexander The Great implies that this leader was extrodinary in all that he did. When really, he was extrodinary mainly in one area...conquering.
i think he was great because he conquered his anxeity to become an 18 year old king. he also conquered persia in such a little time. he instilled loyalty in his men by connecting with them and fighting alongside them on their weakest flank. the matter of his death, you have all said he died of alcohol poisoning. but the actual cause of his death has many factors including typhus. it doesnt really matter what he didnt do because he died. what he did do was impressive and that earns him the title of great.
No, while conquering the persian empire would make him one of the greatest, it does not make him able to own the title "The Great". Like it was said in class, many people and countries have conquered many places but are not refered to as great. Maybe it would be fair call him "Alexander the Great Leader" because he was held as with high regards as a military leader, but certainly not just "Alexander the Great" because it's too bold a statement.
My man Brian is the only person who I agree with so far. None of you are seeing this guy for who he is. He took his fathers findings and expanded his empire father than his father ever anticipated. And this guy was only a few years older than I myself am. I would like to see anyone here stand up against an army of thousands not to mention leading from the front of the weakest flank. Most of us would shame ourselves with displays of cowardliness and refuse to risk our lives for our country. Yet, Alexander The Great (for he was great) held his head high and defeated the Persians. My final argument is this: he was given the title of “Great” due to his accomplishments in his short life. And if you only live to the age of 33 and you are still considered “Great” by historians you must have done something worthy of greatness in your short time on earth.
Yes, i think this feat would allow him to have the title "the Great" because not everyone can just conquer a huge country in just 3 years even with a low amount of soldiers. The perisians weren't even able to conquer greece and Alexander did which shows how great and smart he was in the areas of military tatics. He deserves the credit for what he did even though its just in one area.
I don't think he deserved his title "The Great". Although he did acomplish an extraordinary amount in his short life especially being so young. And I respect him that he went into battle the way he did, fighting right alongside his men. But the title "The Great" just doesn't seem to fit. I mean he conquered an empire, he's only "The Great" to his people. If you look at it from the persians perspective he wasn't so great. To the persians Alexander and his men were the new "Persians" and the Persians were the Greeks, I don't know about anyone else but Alexander doesn't seem to different from Xerxes and I believe Xerxes was considered evil.
Not precisely, he might of had the right army as well as the right skills and intelligence to conquer Persia, but we never got to the part where we saw his leadership in maintaining control among his new territory.Unfortunately alcohol ended his life leaving everyone else in deep thinking lusting to know how Alexander might of dealt with his empire. Yet in the end he still should be called Alexander the Great. Half of making the "Great" was the conquering part, and the other half was how he maintained control over his empire.
Meg
I agree with Brian. Alexander the great earned his title through his unbelievable accomplishments, dignity, pride, and stellar leadership ability. At a very young age he was handed a throne. He was a skilled conquerer and led his army with pride and respect. He earned the love and respect of his men by fighting alongside them. Alexander the Great deserves his title.
justin
i think he earned the title "the Great" because at a young age, he had no experience because he was so young. even if he had been older the odds were stacked against him. He was outnumbered 1-4, he still managed to win every battle he fought using great military tactics and strategies to keep the moral of his man high. fighting and working along side his men gained him great loyalty. these combined helped him conquer mass amounts of land known as the Persia. on the other hand, there came be only one great so that is you Mr. Yip.
Katelyn Connor
For hundreds of years, Alexander, has held the label of “Great”, recognizing his important climb to success as a general and military leader. When he was young, his use of tactics, ideas and strategies brought remarkable achievements, including the conquest of land. His leadership has been remembered as such because of his unique mark on the expansion of the Macedonian Empire, and the invasion of the Persians. His role as a military leader was unequalled, so the description of “the great” is logical to be presented on him. At the time, people must have thought him worthy, although his character and the way he gained power may bring into question whether the word “Great” should be used because of his brutality in battle, death, and the many executions suffered by his hands. This points to a person who is not good. However, “Great” can mean “bigger or more important than others of the same kind” and “large and impressive”. He is worthy of those descriptions because his military leadership cannot be denied. As he was making his conquests, he was considered “The Great” for his contributions, regardless of the way he achieved success. Time can play a big role in someone’s accomplishments, so some may argue his actions were not noble. True - but “great” does not mean noble. At the height of his success, there was no one to rival him. His accomplishment should allow him to hold the title of “the great”.
No, I do not believe Alexander deserved the title "the great" because although his actions were great, they did not directly reflect him as a person. If a girl drops her books in the hallway and a boy stops to help her pick them up does that mean he is "a nice boy"? His gesture may have been nice but maybe he is a horribly mean person and he just did that one nice thing because he liked the girl. You can not fully understand someone just by their actions. Yes, I do believe the accomplishments Alexander made were great, but I do not believe that these accomplishments make him great. Alexander may have been great, but i do not believe that he deserved the tittle "the great" just based on those actions.
I definately agree with Sarah when she says that Alexander did not deserve the title that he recieved and that he was a great conqueror though. Although the Persians were defeated through miraculous fighting and bravery, he didn't possess the great inspiring leadership that only rare sums possess. He recieved his respect from leading in military conquest and didn't expand on the power of the nation instead he just as Alex put it, expanded the nation.
It might have given him this title, but i think that it was the fact that he united Greece and Macedonia, and followed in his father;s footsteps almost exactly. He was a graet learner and a great person in general too. I think that Alexander might have also earned the title Alexander The Great from other things, that we havn't talked about yeah.
I would think as Alexander both. Meaning in some ways you could describe himself as Alexander the Great and other ways as Alexander,
King of Macedon. Such reasons for his greatness would be that he was a brilliant leader and tactician. His ways of being able to defeat the Persians although being impossibly outnumbered is astonishing. Also the fact that he conquered a region almost the size of the United States in only a few years is no small feat. But Alexander was a drunk, both of alcohol and power. He wanted to keep conquering lands until he came to the end of the world. Alexander was a smart tactician, but he was not so smart in coming up with a plan of setting up some sort of government that could handle such a large empire. But he probably thought this was not important even though it was. He thought that conquering was more important which eventually lead to the seperation and destruction of his great empire after he died because all of his generals appointed themselves to lead the empire.
Matt Hoey
Sorry for this blog late Mr. Yip.
As many of the other people said, they do not think that Alexander should be called "Great", as do I. I believe that Alexander with his army are great in a military/conquering way. Alexander was not good enough to be called Great because he did not live to rule his Persian/Greek empire. Again, i think his army WITH him are great because for such a small army they were able to conquer so much.
I was not in class today but from what I have gathered from Kelly’s extensive blog: Mr. Yip discussed further accomplishments of Alexander. We were asked yet again to analyze the life of Alexander and to tell weather we thought him worthy of his title Alexander “The Great” I agree with Kelley when she said uniting Grease and Persia was a risky business but if it held for longer than it did I am sure that it would be considered an act worthy of greatness. I believe that the man the history books described to us as Alexander is great but who in the world can assure us a flawless account of this mans deeds and thoughts. My answer to the question is that I cannot answer the question. Because in my opinion Greatness should only be bestowed upon a person to whom we know as well as ourselves.
Webster's Dictionary Defines Great as "Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent". If you solely look at his deed, conquering what was at that point, the known world, at the age of twenty three, seems like his name should be more like Alexander the Extraordinary. I'm totally all for what Byran is saying. Ku-dos.
In truth, Alexander was narcissistic, superficial, and he had a taste for wine, but he was a genius on the field, and he stayed true to his men, and that loyalty, both ways, was so powerful, that his men recognized his flaws and still loved him. Over two thousand years ago, Alexander lived, and he is STILL remembered. Too all people who say he wasn't great, lets see, if 2000 years from now, YOUR'E remembered, and then MAYBE I'll reconsider my point. Maybe.
I prefer to say it with song - as follows:
I belive he should get the title of GREAT,
he carried out his fathers fate. He said it's not just me
I'm a part of this army
and he was part of every one of them so they all gave him respect.
Who would'nt?
He was willing to die with all his men.
All the goals that he set
he completed all of them
building up a Greek empire for the ivasions of Persians.
Most importantly, he took over King Darius before he reached thirty years old
then preseded to mix greek and persian culture.
That's why I believe he deserves his name of Great.
He also is the creator of several city-states.
Post a Comment