Alexander the Thrid

Was Alexander the Great great? Alexander was about 20-22 years old when the pension of the empire. Alexander died of too many battles but, the death was important because Alexander was one of the good soldier leader to be around . The city of their state was falling apart.

I think Alexander deserves the title of Alexander the Great. He was 20 years old when he launched his invasion into the Persian Empire. The evidence I will use are these documents. The legend of the helmet, document D. The battle of Porus, document B. Alexander's empire compared to the Roman Empire, document A, E. I think Alexander was great, because of the size his empire and how little time it took him to make.

Alexander the Great primary reason for defeating Darius in battle is the fact that he knew that his small army could not defeat Darius enormous army. He had to spread Darius army wide therefore weakening him in numbers and was able to send his stronger elite soldiers to Darius weakest point which was in the middle. It is very apparent that Alexander had victory on his mind but his strategy seemed to be both effective and efficient. Although, Alexander the great and Darius were in battle, it seemed that Alexander used fewer soldiers but he was able to. Take working at the bank for instance, in most loan departments the bank would employ normally around thirty people.

Alexander The Great was a powerful military leader and a king. His reign lasted 11 years, during the time of ancient Greece. Within those 11 years he conquered land from Macedonia to the Hindu Kush mountains with an army of 40,000 soldiers. Alexander the Great was great for these reasons, his military strategy, leadership, and his achievement and persistence.

Alexander the Great is a great war general and lead his arm to many victories. Alexander died and made the largest kingdom that lasted about 3,000 years. King Henry VII killed a lot of his people and only cared for himself. Even though they are very different they are similar in some way Alexander the Great did a lot for his kingdom. He was ruthless but had mercy for people he respected in war.

Great or not? Alexander the “Great” was a Macedonian leader who conquered and discovered many cities in just 12 years. But was Alexander really that much of an amazing leader? The answer to that is not at all. He killed thousands, was very narcissistic, and ruined many cultures.

Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia in the year 356 BCE. Alexander's father King Philip built the Macedonian army into a "deadly fighting machine". Next Philip planned to attack the huge Persian Empire. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and at age of 20 Alexander inherited his father's kingdom and set out with the army to conquer Persian. Alexander leads his troops across Central Asia. Is Alexander the Great living up to his name? I will show you why Alexander deserves his name to be great.

Alexander the great created a long lasting impressing legacy for himself, his warriors, and his great empire. Alexander was born in 356 B.C.E. in Macedonia, just 20 years later he became the King of an empire because of his father's early death (BGE). Alexander conquered many of the world’s greatest empires ever know, and doing so at a very young age! He created one of the strongest most feared empires seen (Docs A & E). So, how great was Alexander the Great? He showed many signs and characteristics of leadership and remarkable achievement throughout his life and his rule in Macedonia. Alexander was great for three big reasons, he created a strong and feared empire, had a long lasting legacy, and he was a smart strategic leader.

One of the basic themes of the book is that the thought and the art of classical Athens is full of meaning for people of later generations. It is the full of meaning for nations, cultures and societies beset by broad-scale and profound social and political change and the accompanying confusion and fear produced in the minds and souls of human beings.

One element of the author’s style that I noticed and enjoyed about this novel is how the author properly characterizes each member of the story interestingly, and successfully manages to make the story more appealing due to his use of multiple literary elements. One opening property in this novel is the use of characterization. Aristotle, the protagonist and narrator of this story, is considered a dynamic character. Through the beginning of this novel, Aristotle was very shy, and had a limited amount of friends; moreover, he portrayed himself as timid, antisocial, and basic compared to other of his “peers.” This all changed, however, shortly into the novel, when Aristotle stumbled into a new individual. The book continues by letting the reader understand that Aristotle likes feeling sorry for himself. A passage in the book to support this claim goes as follows,”Feeling sorry for myself was an art. I think a part of me liked doing that.” (Saenz, 13) We also discover that Aristotle’s dad seems far away to him regardless of living in the same house. Moreover, we get some small backstory of Aristotle’s father, and we understand that his father feels distant to him because of the Vietnam war; a war in which Aristotle’s dad was a part of. A line

Classical education is arguably one of the most influential educations in American history. Not only does it allow the student to study great literature of Ancient Greek and Roman writers, but allows them to develop both written and spoken language while learning of great men and their achievements. Without the knowledge of the past, it is impossible to look forward toward the future. To be considered an educated person in today’s society, it is imperative that one possesses an understanding of ancient Greek and Roman civilization. The Founding Fathers of our nation believed this and used their knowledge acquired through classical education when developing the system of government we have in place today. This essay will look at the

Alexander The Great, ruler over Macedonia, was born in 356 BCE, from his father, King Philip. Alexander inherited his father's land and his rule at age 20, when his father died in 336 BCE. So, was Alexander The Great really great? Alexander was great for these reasons: his remarkable achievements and his successful military strategies.

In short, personal opinions play a role in any decision we make or action we take. In spite of this, through the different sources of information, and his dedication to maintaining as close to an unbiased account of history as humanly possible, Thucydides has created a complex work of art that informs future generations, and is, thus, a valuable historical

“Aristotle's Golden Touch” This essay will be addressing different aspects of Ovid’s story of King Midas and Aristotle’s the Politics. Specifically comparing both based on how each author presents their ideas. The following will argue, why Ovid’s story of King Midas by comparison to Aristotle’s Politics lacks clarity within the message of the narrative. Ovid presents four interpretations, which makes it difficult for the audience to understand the purpose of the narrative.

Aristotle is remembered as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His ideas on human nature, life and death, politics, and other great topics have laid the foundation for our world today. Aristotle not only succeeded in the area of Philosophy, but in the studies of History, Government, Politics, Drama, and to this day he is known as the father of Biology and the sciences. His many great ideas of the world and how we should live our lives were rarely challenged by others in his time because of how intelligent of a Philosopher he was considered to be. Today, Aristotle’s theory of drama is used screenwriters all over the world, and the outcome from his study of government systems is reflected in the U.S. Constitution. This secular genius has made a great impact on history.