During the eighteenth century and up until the nineteenth century, Greeks were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. It was during this time that nationalism and the idea that your people should have the best became really popular. Greeks in the Balkans and in Asia Minor decided to revolt against their rulers in March 1821, starting a nine-year war in search for their independence. When other European countries siding with them intervened, the Greeks finally gain their freedom. During the war, people formed opinions on the Greeks: some praised and sympathized with them while others didn’t.
He got a lot of his mindset from his parents and Achilles, his mentor and trainer. Have you ever wondered what makes people a hero or villain? Alexander was the king of Macedonia. He conquered millions of square miles of land in Asia and Europe. Alexander
The soldiers fought and did whatever Alexander told them to do. Document A is an example of this, because the soldiers traveled everywhere and destroyed many things for pointless reasons. This makes Alexander not great and great at the same time because he was fair to his soldiers when it came to certain things as in he stood in front of the soldiers during battle and wasted his own water because there weren't enough for everyone. But also he pushed them and made them basically die because of how much Alexander wanted to
Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were two highly important men in the history of the world. In Greek and Roman Lives, the historian Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, better known as just Plutarch, wrote about the lives of these two great men. He wrote of how their surroundings and the people around them influenced them, and how that affected their success in their plans to reach some form of eternal glory in their desire to become greater than those who came before them. They were both extremely ambitious, quick to fight, and careless of danger on the path to glory.
GRC 20010: Alexander and his Successors End-of Semester Assignment Student Name: Rachel McHugh Student Number: 14494322 Q.1. Does the available ancient evidence for Alexander’s attempts to integrate the Persian and the Macedonian elements of his empire indicate that he persued a coherent and successful policy? Support your answer with examples from the ancient sources and discuss their reliability as historical evidence. When Alexander eventually took over Persia he wanted to make his empire even greater by merging the two cultures together, the Macedonians and the Persians, resulting in them being a united force that would be a force to be wreckoned with to all the over terriotories.
This meant that he saw them as an asset to the kingdom whether they were in the military or ordinary citizens. Alexander used his people but not the way Charlemagne did. Charlemagne squeezed out details from anyone who might have a valuable information that he can use for military purposes. His advanced planning and calculation had prevented rebellions domestically and helped him conquered foreign lands. Charlemagne’s military conquest had outlived Alexander and even pass his succession that Alexander did not do.
To start off, Odysseus is a person who displays his dauntlessness through his actions. For example, Odysseus showed his dauntlessness when he went to the Island of the Cyclopes. When he had visited the Island of the Cyclopes he had saved his men’s lives. “Now came the time to toss for it: who ventured along with me? whose hand could bear to thrust and grind that spike in the Cyclops’ eye, when mild sleep had mastered him?”
Alexander’s armies linked a new Hellenistic world to many other regions. It brought people with a shared interest in religion and art together. Hellenism was spread during and after the conquests by Alexander because Alexander was a daring person who took a risk that paid off, some of which included heading towards the Persian Empire and conquering vast amounts of land. The tactics used by Alexander to conquer these lands were to use heavily armed infantries with groups of troops dispersed throughout the lands. As Alexander conquered these lands, he and his troops brought with them their culture.
After his early death at the age of 33, Alexander left behind a vast empire stretching from Greece to northwestern India. In addition to his empire, however, Alexander also left a lasting impression on the world as a military leader and king. Even today Alexander remains a respected historical character, considering that his military strategies are still used in modern warfare. This paper thus attempts to answer the question what lasting impacts Alexander the Great had on future generations. In doing so this paper will examine three aspects of Alexander the Great: his personality, his military skills and, lastly, the resulting cultural impact of his conquests.
it tells of Alexander’s efforts to lead his army and to build his empire. Alexander the great’s military organization from the passages was very diverse and one nation did not get along with the with other nations within the army, Alexander uses the military structure to unite by placing foreign soldiers in army formations with the Greek soldiers, Alexander tried to change the relationship between the Greeks and the Persians by having a big feasts, sharing drinks, and singing with one another. What can we learn about Alexander the Great’s military organization? Alexander’s military organization was very mitch matched in the sense that when he conquered a new nation he would simply add the members of that nation's army to his own, this caused many of the soldiers to become enraged with Alexander. The
In ancient Greece religion was an important facet of everyday life as well as an essential aspect of warfare and battle. Soldiers in ancient Greece frequently sought support from the deities to ensure a safe and conclusive victory through ritual sacrifice. Sometimes warriors even had to sacrifice multiple times to ensure support, even if this meant postponing battle. Religion did not only dictate the time in which one could begin a battle, but times in which battles could not be fought at all, that is during festivals and religious games. Religion also dictated spaces in which battles could not be fought, in holy sites such as temples, and spaces in which battles should be fought, something that could be decided through the interpretation of religious prophecies.
Alexander the Great was the king and renown general of Macedonia. He led the Greek army against Persia and used many bold tactics in battle. Alexander the Great significantly expanded the Greek legacy by conquering territories. When he conquered a territory, he would not force the locals to assimilate into the Greek culture. This is to ensure they would not rebel against his leadership.
Alexander The Great:An Analysis A wise person once said “Every villain is a hero in his own mind.” Someone might think this because one thinks that they are helping but just making it worse. As a child Alexander was tutored by Aristotle. Aristotle warned him not to kill, Alexander did anyway, he even killed his own father to become king of Macedonia.
Following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E., all of his conquered territories were divided between Alexander 's generals, known as the Diodochi. And one of Alexander 's many generals, Seleucus, was a close associate of his, giving him a solid chance to obtain one of his conquered territories. After the First War of the Diodochi, Seleucus received Babylonia. Once Seleucus had received Babylonia, he soon started to expand his rule into Alexander 's eastern territories. All of these territories would soon come to form the Seleucid Empire, which lasted from 312-64 B.C.E. The Seleucid Empire was made up of modern Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, with parts of Turkey, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and
Thucydides was an Athenian historian that wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War. His account of the conflict is considered a classic and is one of the earliest works of history. When analyzing his work, there are multiple ways to view it. It can be looked at as an objective piece of history that attempts to record the events that unfolded. But it can also be seen as a piece of literature that tries to tell a story and evoke emotion through symbolism rather than be a historical recording.
