Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Exit Ticket, 1/6/09
Has your opinion of Alexander's "greatness" changed since learning about his efforts to build a Hellenistic world which combines the best elements of Greek and Persian culture? He was not only a conqueror but he also had a vision of a united world with a shared culture with him as its leader. Does this make him "great?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
no, i dont think he was so great still. just because he tried to build a new empire doesnt mean he really suceeded. his empire collapsed quickly after his death. not only that, but the culture he created also vanished over time as persia rose in power again. while he helped the culture rise, you dont really know how far he would have taken it.
Kelly Francisco
I stick with my opinion in saying that Alexander did not deserve the title "great". Yes, he did do many things people consider "impossible", but if they were impossible, Alexander couldn't have achieved these "impossable" achivements. Uniting two enemies, Greece and Persia is a big thing, but my question is how long can enemies truly get along? Greece and Persia have fought for many years, were enemies, and yet became united?Going back to the whole dumping the water out thing talked about in class, I think Alex was being loyal yet at the same time wasn't thinking to clear. That little bit of water was all they had left, why not keep it to help out those suffering so badly, in a few steps they might drop dead? To expand on the culture part Alex was talking about, I don't see his approach was all that fair. In my opinion forcing people into marriage isn't fair. A child can't unite two people. If children united people, then why are the statistics for child abuse so high? One of the other ways he tried to unite people was by religion. You can't change people's views on religion. They have the freedom. It's not right to take away that freedom. Overall Alexander did accomplish many things at a young age, but he should not deserve the title of the great.
I have utilized the information I learned today to find out that Alexander does deserve the title. I do kind of support Kelly's opinion concerning the water but I also think that what he did was necesary. It proves that he has respect for his nation's soldiers and demonstrates his bravery as he will suffer what his men will suffer. There is no discrimination between him and the soldiers by committing to that event of giving up the water. After hearing that and Bryan's opinion about him being young while attempting this feat, he should deserve the title of "THE GREAT."
i understand what Alex is saying but i kindly disagree. i strongly believe that had he not die, there would be a Hellenistic country to this day. in the words of the great Justin "One's imminent demise is the solitary obstacle obstructing one from attaining absolute greatness". this means that if he hadn't died, he would have successfully united the two countries. maybe he would have failed, but succeeding in what he had, one can assume that he would have achieved his goal.
Well of course Alexander had to have a plan. I don't think he just expected to rule an entire empire without one. This plan gets some brownie points, but I am still saying he is not great all over.
No one knows if he would be able to pull off combining to cultures. Not only that, but they were enemies for the longest time. It would be a difficult task. If he didn't die and were to pull off combining them, and ruling his empire for a good amount of time without it crumbling, only then would I concider to call him great.
I strongly agree with what Alex says.
And Kelly, I dissagree with your statement. Yes It could have helped 1 person, but choosing that person would have been a difficult decision, and how long would the water last anyways? In reality, It would have not made a huge impact. I thought it was respectful of Alex to dump it out. It shows that he is just like everyone else, and that's why his men were so victorious, because they looked up to him. He was loyal to them, and they were loyal in return.
Once again i do believe his actions were great, but i do not believe they make him great. Everyone has an idea of a perfect world, and given the opportunity would love to great it. the only thing that made Alexander different was that he had a chance to change the world. He may have wanted to create a perfect world, but he did not succeed.
No, I still don't think that Alexander didn't deserve the title of "Great". I agree with Kelly when she said that if what Alexander accomplished was impossible than he would not have been able to succeed. Adding on the subjectt, in order to be great, you should be nearly perfect, and a man who has drunken rages is clearly not almost perfect. However, after the points Bryan made in class, I have a little more respect for Alexander, but not enough to call him "Great".
Meg
I still believe that Alexander deserved his title. This contributes to the respect, determination, and leadership quaulities that Alexander possessed. Not only did he hold the authority and leadership ability to lead an army he was determined to lead the Greek and Persian people to a united culture. He had a vision of combining these two cultures that he thought of as beautiful and was determined to do so for the greater good. However, as Mr.Yip said at the end of class, he thought that the people should worship him as the god of this new culture. This controdicts a major thing that Alexander stood for. Alexander was one to fight alongside his men and to have equal privledges and disadvantages of his soldiers. The idea that he believed he was worthy of being worshipped by the Greeks and the Persians was egotistical. That is the only reason that my opinion of Alexander would be altered. I think that his good qualities far outweigh this flaw. Therefore, Alexander deserves to be called Alexander the Great.
I still do believe that Alexander did still deserve his title as "great". This is because of how strategic he laid out his planes to unite to create this Hellenistic world. There were some very good ideas like the city idea was genus! Cities are where things get done and especially today cities are moving faster and when you get caught in the forever moving city life there are no time to stop and say you don’t want to do business with him or I won’t work with him because he's a Persian. There is just no time and if they do they will get lost behind in the every changing world.
I do believe people have some valid points like when Alex said that he didn’t actually succeed that what the nature of humans are as I have said before. Human nature is most of the time setting out goals and they do their best to achieve them, but there isn’t enough time in the human life so most big goals are strived for through numerous generations. Alexander was the next generation that was able to accomplish the goal that his father put into motion. That is a great thing.
I also do believe that a strong argument for him not being great is his death. Now I would like to first point out that it was never and probably could never be proven that he drank himself to death only if you lived 2000 years ago. So you are saying an argument based of an assumption and if science figures out that he actually died of a disease or something then Alexander was a great man that unfortunately died before his true rise would unfold.
Finally my opinion about the story of the helmet. I believe that what he did was a noble and selfless deed. First, a tyrant king would snatch up the water and keep it for himself. As for the person who gave him the water, when you are dying in the desert loyalty doesn’t matter so I think if he was truly sick or dying and really needed the water he would not have given it to Alexander so I do believe that it is not dishonor to get rid of it. Finally I do believe if it fit in the helmet and there was lots of people dying then it would not have been an honorable thing to give it to one of then because there were too many and if he picked one or a couple people to give it to then it would show favors and he would lose the loyalty of his army. I believe that act was nodal and a true leader would die with his crew just as a captain goes down with his ship. Alexander the GREAT will remain!
Matt Hoey
Again, i believe that Alexander did not deserve the title of "great". This is because he still did not rule over his empire. He tried to create one, but his empire didn't last with his death. Also the point that Dylan made which is true and also funny about how he was not nearly perfect because of his drunken rages made him not a great man at those times. The main reason he is still not great is because he did not succeed in his new creation of his empire. I will admit though that he was a great conquerer and soldier.
Why are people holding such high standers for him to achieve greatness. I think he deserves the name - Great. You can look at it two ways, first off, it's a great point that Alex made that his empire collapsed after his death. That is a great piont, but if he didn't die, maybe he would've been known as Alexander the God, I digress. If you look at it through the eyes of the many people that new Alexander and the people of Greece who knew exactly why Alexander was on this conquest, They would call him great. This is because he ultimately carried out his father's dream. Now, maybe that alone is not enough to deserve him the name "The Great", but why is everybody forgetting the cities that rose up when he crossed Egypt and the other countries along his way. Now, I'm sorry, but taking over empires and depleating armies that outnumber you throughout a course of less than 20 years is nothing short of incredible. What else do you want people? And stop it with his army made him great. You know, Wayne Gretkzy didn't score the most goals by himself and he's considered the GREAT ONE.
MR.YIP'S COOL
Sarah Kelley
My opinion of Alexander's title has in fact changed after taking a closer look at his efforts to unite city states. I agree mostly with what Ed stated about the water incident. Alexander possessed the ability to make sure he was treated as his men were. This gesture of giving water no one because there was not enough earned him a great deal of respect in the eyes of his men. This quality of being not self oriented, and believing in treating all equally, is still an admirable today. After his conquerings, Alexander strived for unity. Even just his efforts and ideas to promote an equal place in the world, prove that he deserves a title of "greatness."
I disagree with all the people that said that Alexander doesn't derserve the title "great". Although, most of you make good points like how Kelly said that you can't just changed a person's point of view if you change their religion or marrying a certain nationality. As Tom had said yesterday, Would you all be able to conquer a vast empire with thousands of soldiers and such a few in your disposal. If you guys had a vision of uniting the world together with a shared culture would you try to attempt to do that. Alexander the great did and he almost succeeded. My opinion is the same as Bryan when it comes to the soldier giving the water to Alexander for he was trying to be one of them and he can't just give it to a certain group of soldier because he would lose loyalty as Bryan had said. These were different times, and i think that loyalty and honor mattered the most to them. What Alex says is true that his empire collapsed quickly after his death but really doesn't all empires eventually collapse and a new one begin. Look at the Romans sure they survived longer than Alexanders but they still collapsed and Look at America now doesn't it look like we are about to collapse with the recession. If Alexander had still lived I think that he would be able to make his empire florish but eventually as everything it will collapse. (its true not trying to look on the negative side of things)Overall, I think that people are thinking that great has to refer to a broad range of abilities or accomplishments that a person makes whereas you can be great in a few things and still be great. Remember that Alexander had at least tried to do something with his ideals and was able to get somewhere with them. I mean not everyone can just take an army of not a lot of people against a bigger army and win and on top of that creating about 200 cities spreaded out in Persia.
Bryan's TOTALLY right. I knew I liked this kid. Alexander was a Fantastic example of a conquerer, possibly the greatest in history(pun intended.)He also, however, understood the dynamics of how civilization works. He built cities to draw people, and where you have people, you have culture. With people from all over his empire, India, Persia, Greece, and Macedonia, he single handedly brought the world's two greatest cultures together,and gave birth to something that was greater than the sum of its parts, and one only has to look at the Greek Buddha to see why.
This is Tom Wynne's post, he posted in yesterday's exit ticket.
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.
I stand by my previous decision and i still believe that he is deserving of the title great. his aspirations were just and not for his own personal gain. i believe that what alex said is reasonable but is not completely true. i believe the combining of religion, culture and heritage would have been enough to create one great nation. granted he would have required assistance in the rule and organization of the government, he would still be the head of his newly founded government. he might of taken ideas from the philosopers in order to create the three stage government of philosopher kings, guardians and citizens. it was a possibility as he was tutored by aristotle. i do agree with kelly that there would be conflict between the neighboring people of greece and persia, but there are conflicts in the united states today. mostly between different races and cultures, primarily even. so if the united states is considered a "great country," then the hellenistic empire could have been equally great. considering the simalarities of the two including size and variety in race. so anyway back to my original point, a nation of this size is not without issue but is not a bad nation. Alexander was deserving of the title great.
And here is my post.
I'm kind of sitting on the fence now, after hearing what Alexander did and in the fashion that he has done it. As Alex M. said, he tried to build this new empire, but in the end, it ended up collapsing. If it was a strong empire, it would have stayed alive, even though the man who built it was dead. However, I also agree with Bryan's thoughts. According to Bryan, Alexander tried to make this city, with two of the most powerful nations that were alive during the day. He wasn't just a conquorer who didn't care about the cities that he was destroying or leaving in blood pools, he was a man who studied his opponents and he learned that the Persian's state of mind was rather unique, just the Greeks were. Bryan was right in saying that cities were where everything happens, for it is 100% true. The cities that you hear about aren't Lincoln, RI, but New York, New York, the busiest place today, and Hollywood, where all the movies are made. I mean, everyone knows the city that people talk about when they say New York, or Hollywood, it's where all of today is happening. Also, a contradiction to what Kelly said about the children uniting people, Alexander was not a child. Sure he was young, but he wasn't our age when he accomplished all these things. He was 30 years old when he died, starting the prime of his life. He had ideas that he wanted to make reality. He was a great thinker, and this is why I truly believe that Alexander truly deserved the title "The Great."
I completely agree with bryan's opinion on Alexander the Great and how he states "the water incident". Obviously if the man who gave him the water needed it, he would not have offered that scarce amount to Alexander. Kelly previously stated that she thinks Alexander did not fully think out his action of dumping the water out. I disagree with that. Even if he had given the water to those who were suffering, others with ALexander would argue they were suffering just as much. What if there wasn't enough water for all of those who were injured?
I stand with my original belief that Alexander should have “The Great” remaining as his title. Considering the different meanings of the definition of “great” which I stated yesterday, his use of a vision and goal for the development of the world around him makes him a unique leader, one who accomplished things that no other was able to. The water issue established unity in suffering – while it may appear to some to be a poor sense of ethics, the time and place must be considered. Today, he may not be seen the same way, but at the time, his acts forced huge changes for the future. His ability to bring about a new direction, uniting cultures proved valuable. The description “The Great” does not mean he is perfect, it just is added to his name to set him apart from others of his time. It means he was the sole leader and reason to take a new direction. A leader who has insight that no one else had at the time. This insight made him take actions that changed the future of a culture. This is worthy of distinction. “Great” as it is defined, is skillful, notable, impressive, famous, and is a good fit.
Everyone is saying Alexander is now great because he saw the beauty in people’s cultures and attempted to unite them. His father King Phillip saw the beauty in Greek culture and he's the one who came up with the goals. ALSO, he was a good ruler. Nobody called him Phillip the great. Yes, everyone knows Alexander was young when he conquered all of Persia, but his ability to rule the whole empire was never shown. He has flaws and is lacking a crucial part to being called “great”. This proves he does not deserve the whole title. Alex's point was a great one. Alexander was very naive trying to unite two enemy regions. It was never going to work out. To prove that, after Alexander died most of his efforts went to waste because his empire collapsed. If he can't get people to cooperate with each other, how does he expect to rule them? Most of you are missing the point.
Bryan uses this as one of his points: “This is because of how strategic he laid out his planes to unite to create this Hellenistic world"
Alexander copied his father with this one. Phillip wanted to unite Greece as one. It was a small step but worth it. Alexander thought a little too much out of the box trying to unite both Greece and Persia. Phillip only thought that Greece was united. It might not have been which creates a larger problem for Alexander.
I looked up the word great online and a few words that came up were: powerful, influential, and noble:, yes Alexander was influential and noble but ruling wise was he really powerful?
He had the ability to control an army of 30,000 men from his own country, but what about two major enemy countries? Was he really ready to be one of the greatest rulers of all time, which united two of the fiercest enemy countries? To that I say no. (Proven above with Alex’s comment) He couldn’t even convince his own men to keep fighting. How was he supposed to rein over millions of people? There is something to think about when you call him “great”. I do believe he deserves the title the “great conqueror” but not “the great”.
In my opinion I cannot say that Alexander didn't deserve the title NOR deserve it at all because of the many pros and cons.
Pros-
-We know and learned that he was a great leader willing to fight with his men in the battle rather than standing in the back giving orders. He was a much different leader with great aptitude and character that led his army to augment loyalty towards him.
-Alexander at a young age managed to accomplish a great task in a small amount of time which greatly contributes to his pro. The goal achieved was to conquer both Greece and Persia.
-He was already envisioning the Hellenistic world which brings together Greece and Persia.
-In the middle of the trip back Alexander and his troops took the desert route back. One of his soldiers showed him the last drops of water left for his master, yet Alexander refused to oblige and decided to stay in the same position as his weakening soldiers. This showed that Alexander, even after his soldiers declined to comply into pushing farther more for land, that he remained loyal.
Cons-
-One of the famous cons of Alexander was his drinking problem that soon led him to destruction. It lowered the possibilities of the Hellenistic world and other plans. It was one of his weaknesses, yet no one is perfect.
-He tried to push upon more land. He wanted to claim more land with a couple thirty thousand but pushed his luck too far and so his army had to refuse. They've been away from Greece for 8 years and wanted to return.
In conclusion, I'm unable to choose weather Alexander deserved to be called the "great" or not. We can all find that both sides are very convincing, but equally matched in a way. Therefore I choose no side.
I had originally said that I don't think Alexander deserves his title, and im going to stick my opinion. I think it's really cool what he did when he mixed Greek and Persian cultures. It obviously had a huge impact on the known world. But I don't really know how this new Greek, Persian empire worked out and but from what Alex said it didn't work out too well. I think he clearly had a very good idea and good intentions when merging the two cultures but i guess it just didnt work out.
My views on Alexander the Great, are beggining to change. As a concerer i think that he had no right to deserve the title of great. I agree with Edd's opion on Alex's title of the great. In Edd's response, he said that accomplishing such an amazing feat at such a young age was truley remarkable. Also being able to unite Greece and Persia, two very powerful enemies, is amazing at such a young age to do it. I dissagree with Kelly on alot of points. For one, not all alliances collapse. Even if it did, it was still an amazing accomplishment to even unite them at all. Another point i dissagre with Kelly on, is how he thought that dumping the last of the water on the ground was him not thinking straight. Not drinking the water meansthat he was loyal to all of his troops, and showed that he was one of them, deserving the title great. After the talk we had in class that Alex was not just a concerer but a uniter, I believe that Alexander did deserve the title great for he truley was by uniting the Middle East and becoming one of the most powerful rulers.
I somewhat changed my opinion, I believe that Alexander had good plans to rule and connect the greeks and persians. His idea of creating cities was a good idea because of all the ideas and people it attracts. But creating a religion of himself was wrong because the persians were harder to convert to this religion. Also marrying a greek and persian would be a problem because they have been enemies for a long time. He also never left any rule of succesion if he was ever killed. This lead to the breaking up of his empire because his generals were fighting over the role as king of what Alexander had conquered.
Sorry mr. Yip i posted in the january 5th exit ticket
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.
Post a Comment