The Corruption of Alexander the Great Collapsed his Aspiration Exceeded and misused power destroys its possessor. Already in power, Alexander still sought more significant power. During his childhood, his father's role as emperor of all of Greece inspired Alexander's desire and pursuit of power. Moreover, after his father's death, his hunger for power increased. He managed to unite the Persian Empire by continually conquering other countries. After Darius was stabbed by his man, Alexander was no longer content with his throne as the king of Macedon, monarch of Greek and Persia, so he started to conquer more regardless of his people's willingness. His empire was already cracked during his reign and immediately collapsed after he died like a …show more content…
He loved power, which came from the culture of the time, and his personality, which formed during his childhood. However, because he misused the desire for power, this power corrupted him: He became ruthless and used extreme methods to control his men. After he tasted the sweetness of power, he started scheming and murdering to secure absolute power. His people disagreed with him, which led to the final corruption of his kingdom. His love of power was heavily influenced by his upbringing. The values and myths of ancient Greece advocating power and his upbringing environment greatly influenced Alexander's perception of power. Since childhood, he had an almost crazy desire for power: "As a lad, I was jealous of my father, fearing that he would achieve glory on such a scale as would leave none for me, I have never feared anything, save that mischance that would prevent me from fulfilling my destiny" (Pressfield 1). The only thing he was afraid of was losing power and having no …show more content…
Excessive pursuit of power can lead to bad results in the end. After the rulers gained unlimited power, they generally built monumental buildings for themselves or their loved ones: for example, Pericles in Athens spent much money to build the Parthenon, and Alexander was no exception, "He planned vast and impracticable projects: a mausoleum for Philip that matched the largest Egyptian pyramid, six grandiose temples at the cost of 1,500 talents each" (Green 10). This mausoleum and the temples cost a lot of money and put the people who are now in a happy life in labor. If he could put his power into making people's lives more comfortable and strengthening the country's management system, his empire would not disintegrate quickly after his death. Alexander just did not care about the future of his kingdom, in addition to not truly ruling it while he was still alive. On his deathbed, he made the allegation that he had no intention of creating a government or an heir to his throne. Instead, he was still concerned about conquering: "But above all, he was planning, even on his deathbed, for further conquests: of Arabia, and then of North Africa westward as far as the Pillars of Heracles near what is now Gibraltar, and back by way of Spain and South Italy" (Green 10). His own power was everything to Alexander. His entire kingdom fell apart when he died, and his territory was split up into new kingdoms. In a
Alexander the Great, son of Phillip the second, was a mighty Macedonia king who came close to conquering the entire civilized world of his day. Shortly after succeeding the throne, Alexander began the dynastic purging of his enemies. Alexander was extremely ambitious and aspiring. Alexander died in 323 BC and his empire stretched from the western edge of modern-day India to Egypt! Alexander not only created a vast empire, but he also helped begin the flow of cultural diffusion throughout his conquered lands.
As the successor to Philip II and Great King of a vast empire, Alexander must have possessed aspects that qualify him for his noble position. Based on Plutarch’s account of Alexander, he was intelligent and had the utmost respect for knowledge; his appreciation of philosophy lasted throughout his life and his intelligence made him capable of making the decisions of a king. Alexander also seemed to have had an arrogance fit for his status. Alexander’s haughtiness, although it often does land him in heated situations, also strengthens his confidence as a leader. His leadership capabilities began at a young age, and its extent is reflected by the immensity of the Macedonian empire by the end of his reign.
By this I mean that his empire only held together for ten years after his death (Doc E). A great conqueror would want his empire to go down in history as the best, but Alexander did not even tell the people who would rule after he died. His grand empire took up a great chunk of his life to build and not caring what happened after his death shows that he was not concerned about what happened to others after his death. In the background essay, it says that, “For reasons that are unclear, he [Alexander] had not named an heir. After much fighting, Alexander’s generals split up the land.
This is why Thebes first revolted but through the rebellion, he was able to prove his point, show his military brilliance, and rule with a gentle but strong hold. During the time of his death, Alexander the Great had a large influence and a massive number of cities. His empire was two million square miles and he had founded seventy cities. He accomplished this over eleven years (Doc. X). His army marched, marched, and marched on and year after year, day after day, they conquered.
Alexander the great was renowned for being one of the most influential conquerors of his time. During his conquest, Alexander created a vast Hellenistic Empire but sadly did not live long enough to actually rule it. Alexander’s mission to expand his empire was directly influenced by his father. During the Peloponnesian War, a majority of Macedonia was left untouched.
(Doc. B). This empire had not messed with him or affected him conquering land, but Alexander saw an opportunity and jumped at it first chance he saw. Alexander did not think about the negative affect that was created by him conquering all this land, he just saw the opportunity to become more powerful, and make his empire one of the biggest. He wanted to set a legacy for himself, and did not care about how everyone else was
This made Alexander ruthless because noticeably he was mean and harsh, he did not show mercy to anyone who tried to come in the way of him ruling and conquering more land. Also, proven in Document E an estimation of 100,000 enemy soldiers and civilians were killed in only 4 major battles. This makes Alexander ruthless because, 100,000 is not a small number and to have killed so many people in just the time of 4 battles it can be concluded that he did not like anyone who disagreed with him being the leader of all, so he did what he thought was best and killed anyone without the smallest amount
He was determined to uphold his fathers dream and take control of Persia. Alexander was considered strategic in his battles and wasn’t scared to go first before his army into war. His appreciation and sympathy for religion and his troops is what makes him such a heroic leader. By these
The conquests of Alexander the Great during the 4th century BC undoubtedly transformed the ancient world, bringing people of foreign lands into contact with Greek ideals and customs that spawned a unique Hellenistic period of both decaying and generative traditions. Despite the historical dramatization of Alexander, emphasizing his charisma and intellect as being the driving forces in creating an empire of a size that had never been imagined before, the contexts of cultural tension between Greek and Persian societies, a fractious Greek political state, and civil strife from an overpopulated Greek world greatly supplemented Alexander’s inherent traits in clearing a path for him to rise and embark on a path of conquest in the pursuit of eternal
A good leader should be humble, gracious, and thankful, but Alexander, on the other hand, was egotistical, conceited, and showed almost no gratitude to his
Alexander was not only the king of Macedonia but he was able to become the most courageous military general in history. He started with the small empire of Macedonia, and he was able to prove that even though his empire was small yet very powerful. Alexander expanded his empire all throughout Europe conquering bigger and stronger empires. He was able to conquer these empires by outsmarting them. Alexander came up with military strategies that seemed unusual and impossible at the time.
The teachings of Aristotle impacted Alexander by showing his conquered provinces a sense of tolerance due to both generosity and political wisdom rather than applying an artificial scheme to all countries; the adoption of the division of power was incorporated to prevent the possibility of rebellion (6). However, despite implementing an improved political system, Alexander established himself as a liberator by using harsh force on rebellious cities and executing an individual with a powerful influence that threatened his control (1). In order to achieve his mission of unification, Alexander felt that the best method of instilling Hellenism was by abiding with their values; he adopted the dress of a Persian king at the court ceremonies in order to strengthen his relationship and appear less foreign toward the Persians (6). Alexander the Great devised various means for unification by proposing to relocate settlers, promoting intermarriage between Persians and Macedonians, and instituting equality towards military service by training the youth located in the East as Macedonian soldiers and teaching them how to use their weapons in order to become Hellenized barbarians after 5 years (6). Alexander the Great had significantly impacted western civilization by creating various systems in order to strengthen the overall influence of the Greek
Lastly, the both of them killed off all potential successors to the throne, even Alexander’s baby boy, Caranus. 2. How did Alexander the Great expand his empire following his rise to power? Alexander the Great expanded his empire following his rise to power because Alexander was a great conqueror of other lands.
Alexander was a tyrant for many reasons including only caring about himself and his forceful and cruel tactics. Alexander is also famous for being the greatest military leader but he was a very bad person and he was cruel to people who hadn’t surrendered. He didn’t care about
Alexander the Great is a name that has been known universally for thousands of years. A few words that come to mind upon hearing his name, may consist of any good quality: audacious, triumphant, or even other wordly. In his book The Classical World: Greece and Rome, Robin Lane Fox contrasts the traits above, and rather, displays of Alexander the Great to be brainwashed, prideful, and a megalomaniac. Alexander's strict childhood plays a role in shaping his future endeavors as an adult; strict rules and military training had formed Alexander into a ruthless fighter. Moreover, Alexander's fighting tactics had led him to countless victories in the entirety of his life, creating a dangerous level of pride and greed.