According to Wikipedia, in broad terms Alexander the Great was a Macedonian King who went undefeated in battle throughout his whole life, became a creator of one of the largest empires during the ancient world, and is “...considered one of history’s most successful military commanders.” Alexander being presented in this manner of high regards and praise within the first paragraph of the entry gives us an idea in our head on what we think Alexander was like. That point of view being presented to us is a leading scenario in which leads us to believe that we can imagine him as some sort of god or someone of considerable importance considering the fact that he is “...history’s most successful military commanders.” Now, that may seem nice and all, but the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. While some people see Alexander in this singular point of view, we have to put into …show more content…
This process and conditions mentioned beforehand is determined by two things. It is only by either setting boundaries between historical process i.e the research, writing, and interpreting of our findings and the historical knowledge (what we know or think to have happened). The other process is by combining the same historical process as already mentioned before with historical narratives (stories from the “past”) that we deem how history works. No matter which way we approach on how we believe history to work, there will always be some instances in which some narratives are being “silenced” whether intentionally or unintentionally and force us to see from a certain point of view. Because of these silences, we are not given the whole truth of the matter and are left to accept a certain standpoint that is being presented to us as in the case with