Alexander The Great Vs Plutarch Analysis

Alexander was very fair because he let the native people that he captured serve in the new government. However, many of the native officials later had to be replaced. He tried to keep the same government style of the conquered lands rather than changing things to the way he wanted. He allowed some degree of self-government by the cities.

Alexander the Great, Hero or Villain? Alexander the Great was a major world conquerer, who controlled over 22 million square miles of land by the end of his journey. He was born in Macedonia as Philip II’s son in 356 BC and became king of Macedonia when he turned 20, after his fathers death. When he was king first he ended the Theban revolt and enslaved all the people to set an example for what would happen if you rebelled against Alexander. Then he set out to conquer the rest of the world until his death in 323 BC.

Plutarch’s Vision of Alexander the Great Ivan, Kish Plutarch lived during the first Century C.E and is one of the most celebrated biographers in history as he wrote about many historical figures both Greek and Roman as he was a descendent of both heritages. His style of biography involved using anecdotes and personal stories to present to his audience how the figure he is writing about should be viewed. This can be seen when he writes about Alexander the Great and portrays him as the perfect leader not through his military victories, but through predestined greatness and how he carried himself in daily life. Plutarch’s use of anecdotes provides a persuasive argument on why he believes Alexander is a truly model leader. Plutarch's writing

Alexander killed an estimated of 100,000 enemy soldiers, and innocent civilians throughout his rein. (Doc. E). He killed all these people just because he wanted more land to gain more power. Most of these people did nothing to Alexander and had no affect on his life except they were an obstacle in the way of him gaining more power. Also Alexander killed a full army in East India because he saw a major opportunity to take control of land from one of the biggest empires.

"Do you think," said he, ‘I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable’” (Lives). Caesar’s desire for glory parallels the desire and actions of Alexander the Great. The Romans loved to read about glorious acts of their empire, and they undoubtedly enjoyed the comparison of Julius Caesar’s glory to that of Alexander the Great, one of the world’s greatest conquerors. Plutarch says that Alexander, as a young man, “was extremely eager and vehement, and in his love of glory, and the pursuit of it, he showed a solidity of high spirit and magnanimity far above his age” (Lives).

In Parallel Lives by Plutarch, he portrays Alexander the Great as an outstanding moral individual and an excellent leader of his people. Although Plutarch illustrates Alexander as a wise, compassionate, and ambitious individual, his defense of Alexander against the people who think of Alexander as a bad leader is weak and inefficient. Plutarch’s defense of Alexander’s fallible qualities, such as his drinking problems and his apathy to his people at the later part of his life is questionable and easily disproved, weakening his argument that Alexander is a truly admirable person. The majority of the beginning of Alexander is dedicated to the description of Alexander’s background and his experiences as he grows up into a mature and ambitious

This event is important because it was at this moment that his father realized that Alexander was destined for things much greater that he could accomplish. Following the years of this event Philip hired many philosophers to teach Alexander and make him a worldly

Alexander The Great’s title of “The Great” was not an exaggeration. To earn the title of “The Great”, you must've done some extremely good things as your reign as a king, queen, or emperor. Alexander The Great did many great and powerful things during his lifetime. He established an extremely powerful military, and he knew how to strategically conquer land, and he was interested in turning this conquered land into powerful areas.

Alexander III, who went down in history as Alexander the Great, was the son and successor of Philip II. He was born in Pella on 20 or 21 July in 356 B.C. (R. L. Fox, Alexander The Great, 1973). For about three years, from 343 B.C. to 341 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle was his teacher. He taught him natural sciences, art, medicine and the Greek language. Alexander was a good student.

Arrian wished to provide an accurate recount of history, using Ptolemy and Aristobulus whenever ”their histories of Alexander son of Philip are in agreement” and says that “where they differ, I have selected the version that I judge to be the more reliable and the more worth narrating”. Whereas Plutarch tells us he focused on Alexander’s virtues and vices, writing about Alexander’s actions, rather than achievements, that he thought best described what kind of person Alexander was; for he was “writing biography, not history, and a person’s most notable actions do not always illuminate his virtues or his vices”. Because of this, their

He was not great because he didn’t show concern for others, leadership, or intelligence. Alexander the Great was not the best because of his mass amounts of murder, not much care for his soldiers, and his poor ability to lead. The first reason Alexander the Great is not amazing because of the mass amount of murder he committed. One example is during the battle at Tyre, once Alexander’s army broke into the city they went on a ferocious killing spree (Doc C). Alexander had ordered anyone that was not inside the temple to be slain and he killed seven thousand Tyrians.

Julius Caesar was the Dictator of Rome in 42 BC who accomplished many things. Many people believed that he was a hero, but Julius Caesar was a very ambitious dictator and was more of a villain than a hero. Julius Caesar was a villain because he didn’t think first before doing something, he forced the Senate to name him dictator for life and he also was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. To begin with, Julius Caesar was a was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. Caesar used his power as dictator more towards his advantage instead of helping the people in Rome.

Describe the steps that Alexander the Great and his mother took to ensure his rise to power. Alexander and his mother took many steps to ensure his power as king of Macedonia. One of the first steps he took was to have a great education. Secondly, Alexander may have gotten his father killed by his bodyguard.

The Life of Marius, written by Plutarch, is a fascinating ancient source detailing the career of the Roman Gaius Marius, 127-86BC. While there are interpretive and reliability issues, the Life of Marius is a particularly useful and significant source. It is our only extensive primary source on Marius, who was a key political figure of late Republican Rome. Additionally, Plutarch’s work indicates not only many crucial military and political development in Rome in the time period, but also gives a reflection of Plutarch’s own Rome and its values and political climate.

He was always courageous and persistent in battle, which made many individuals admire him. Similarly, Julius Caesar was a leader of Ancient Rome. In the beginning of Caesar’s reign, he