We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Why is it that in the many biographies of Alexander the Great, the lands where he ruled over is described as his "empire", but he is only a "king of Macedon"? Was he ever recognized in or after his time as an emperor?
The motivation behind this question is that I remember a Chinese polymath once claimed that the title 大帝1 in 亞歷山大大帝2 is a misnomer because Alexander had never declared himself an emperor.
EDIT: Alternatively, to make this question less vague and hopefully also less opinion-based, what were some of the most supreme titles (that existed or did not exist) Alexander the Great adopted?
1. Him taking the meaning of great emperor rather than the more generic great ruler, which could include great king also.
2. What the Chinese call Alexander the Great.
Note that an empire isn't necessarily ruled by an emperor. When historians describe Alexander's conquests as an "empire", it is at least partly in reference to the fact that he subjugated many nations and countries under his central authority. Alexander was definitely an "emperor" in the sense that he was a ruler of this polity.
As for the Chinese translation, since the word "emperor" didn't exist at the time, it is more a matter of editorial word choice. Note that the character
帝actually means "ruler (of the world)", not "emperor" as such. So
大帝is basically equivalent to "great ruler" or "great king", which certainly fits Alexander. Hence
亞歷山大大帝is a pretty accurate translation.
Several ancient Chinese kings were styled
帝prior to the First Emperor of Qin inventing the imperial title,
皇帝. For example, Di Yi of Shang
EDIT: I thought that Alexander assumed emperor-esque Persian royal titles, and a brief book glance seemed to corroborate. Upon further investigation that appears to have been a popular misconception. Thanks to @fdb and @YannisRizos for pointing it out.
Alexander the Great held the title of Archistrategos (Supreme Commander) of the Corinth League, which was granted to him at the Second Corinth Congress.
He also was a king of Macedon.
He could not bear the title of "imperator" which was a Roman title.
In my humble opinion no realm is an empire, and no ruler an emperor, unless the realm is a Roman Empire and the ruler a Roman Emperor.
Before 800 AD, if someone claimed to be an emperor, and his realm was known as the (or a) Roman realm, he was claiming to be a Roman Emperor and thus MIGHT have been a Roman Emperor.
In 800 AD Charlemagne was proclaimed Emperor in western Europe. After war and negotiations he was recognized as a basileus by the Eastern Roman or "Byzantine" Emperor. The word Basileus originally meant a simple king but by then meant semi-emperor or even full emperor.
The eastern Emperor then changed his title in Greek from Basileus, meaning (really great and powerful and semi-imperial) "King" to Basileus kai Autokrator ton Rhomaion (really great and semi-imperial) "King and Emperor of the Romans".
The Emperors of the Holy Roman empire never called themselves Holy Roman Emperors, but instead usually called themselves Imperator Romanorum et semper Augustus "Emperor of the Romans and always Augustus".
So after about 800 Ad it was pretty clear who was claiming to be a Roman Emperor and thus might be one.
In Latin the word Imperium originally meant authority and power, and more specifically the military, political, and legal command and authority granted to some Roman magistrates, usually with geographical and time limitations. An Imperator was a generic term for a possessor of imperium, especially a magistrate with imperium.
The Early Roman Emperors had three claims to the title imperator.
1) Augustus, the first Emperor, was granted the name and/or title of Imperator by the Senate, which was used by later Emperors. Most of the early Emperors used names in the form of Imperator Caesar (insert full name) Augustus with Imperator, Caesar, and Augustus gradually turning from names into titles meaning "emperor".
2) Emperors continued the earlier practice of being called Imperator by their troops after battle and thus claiming the right to triumphs. Thus Emperors often listed the number of times they were acclaimed Imperator in their full titles.
3) Among the most important powers granted to emperors was the imperium maius, or imperium proconsulare maius et infinitum, the "greater and infinite proconsular imperium" which made them direct governors of all provinces except for those few reserved for the senate, and with superior authority to proconsuls appointed by the senate, thus making the emperor governor of everywhere.
Since the emperor had more Imperium than all other magistrates combined, it was logical to call him THE Imperator, meaning the greatest and most powerful Imperator of them all.
Thus the English word emperor, derived ultimately from imperator is a good word for a Roman Emperor.
Obviously by this stricter definition the Persian Empire was not an empire, because it didn't even claim to be a Roman Empire.
But by a boarder definition, the Persian Empire was an empire because it was a realm with a political ideology which said it was the rightful government of the whole world/universe. And the Persian empire at its largest is estimated to have ruled over 44 percent of the total world population, coming closer to uniting all of humanity than any other realm in history, thus briefly making it the greatest empire ever.
Of course the Persian monarch did not call himself an emperor. The title of the Persian monarch during the Achaemenid dynasty was sometimes "the king" for short, which may have meant THE KING implying the king of everywhere, and was usually given in full as "The great King, the King of Kings, the King of Lands and Peoples, the King of the World". In the later Sassanid Dynasty the title was "King of Kings of Iran and of Non-Iran".
Thus the Persian monarch used a long and complicated title to claim to be the rightful ruler of everyone and everywhere, but for the Roman Emperor Imperator, or Caesar, or Augustus, or a combination of them, came to imply the same thing with just one or a few words.
Note that throughout history the title of king of kings has usually been much lower than emperor. There were a number of kings of kings who were subordinate to Roman Emperors at various times, and in the 20th century the Indian Empire had several subordinate rulers using the title of maharajadhiraja or "great king of kings".
Thus the Persian monarchs were the only kings of kings who could be considered emperor equivalents or emperors for short.
So Darius III could be considered an emperor or emperor equivalent. But what about Alexander?
Alexander was the King of Macedon and the leader of the Hellenic League or League of Corinth which was formed to invade the Persian Empire. The excuse for the invasion was revenge for burning the temples of the gods on the Acropolis during the invasion under Xerxes I. But it was certainly just for Xerxes to burn the temples of the gods to punish them for permitting their worshipers to break their oaths and revolt against the Persian Empire. And thus there was no justification for revenge for that.
Alexander managed to conquer the Persian Empire and rule it for a few years. The realm broke up a few years after Alexander's death as his generals and officials fought to seize kingdoms for themselves out of it. Thus the final result of Alexander's wars was to dissolve the mighty Persian empire into a number of warring realms.
Alexander's life was in constant danger for years as he marched and fought for thousands of miles alongside those same traitorous generals and officials who would later destroy the unity of the realm. Alexander had plenty of time to worry about what would happen after his death, which could have come at any moment, and to recognize the evil characters of his subordinates.
So if Alexander cared anything about his duty to the subjects of the Persian Empire he hoped to become ruler of, he would have come up with a plan to prevent his evil followers from destroying the empire after his death, or else he should have refrained from invading and conquering the Persian Empire.
Certainly the reign of Darius III could hardly have been as fatal for the Persia Empire if Alexander had not invaded, as Alexander's invasion turned out to be.
So I do not consider Alexander the Great to have been an emperor, but instead I consider him to be an evil rebel anti-emperor.
Alexander of Macedon Alexdri Magni Iskander Gujaste 4 headed leopard with wings He-goat His possible interpretation in the Quran Alexander the Great Pharaoh title
Basically, all given posthumously except the first one. The 4 headed leopard and He-goat possibly refer to him in The Old Testament.
List of people known as "the Great"
This is a list of people known as "the Great", or the equivalent, in their own language. Other languages have their own suffixes, such as Persian e Bozorg and Urdu e azam.
In Persia, the title "the Great" at first seems to have been a colloquial version of the Old Persian title "Great King". It was first used by Cyrus II of Persia.  The title was inherited by Alexander III when he conquered the Persian Empire, and the epithet eventually became personally associated with him. The first reference to this is in a comedy by Plautus,  in which it is assumed that everyone knew who "Alexander the Great" was however, there is no evidence that he was called "the Great" before this. The early Seleucid kings, who succeeded Alexander in Persia, used "Great King" in local documents, but the title was most notably used for Antiochus the Great. Once the term gained currency, it was broadened to include persons in other fields, such as the philosopher Albert the Great.
Later rulers and commanders were given the epithet during their lifetime, for example the Roman general Pompey. Others received the title posthumously, such as the Indian emperor Ashoka. As there are no objective criteria for "greatness", the persistence of the designation varies greatly. For example, Louis XIV of France was often referred to as "the Great" in his lifetime, but is rarely called such nowadays. German Emperor Wilhelm I was often called "the Great" in the time of his grandson Wilhelm II, but rarely before or after.
Off With Their Beards!
T he revolution that ended the reign of beards occurred on September 30, 331 b.c. , as Alexander the Great prepared for a decisive showdown with the Persian emperor for control of Asia. On that day, he ordered his men to shave. Yet from time immemorial in Greek culture, a smooth chin on a grown man had been taken as a sign of effeminacy or degeneracy. What can explain this unprecedented command? When the commander Parmenio asked the reason, according to the ancient historian Plutarch, Alexander replied, “Don’t you know that in battles there is nothing handier to grasp than a beard?” But there is ample cause to doubt Plutarch’s explanation. Stories of beard-pulling in battles were myth rather than history. Plutarch and later historians misunderstood the order because they neglected the most relevant fact, namely that Alexander had dared to do what no self-respecting Greek leader had ever done before: shave his face, likening himself to the demigod Heracles, rendered in painting and sculpture in the immortal splendor of youthful, beardless nudity. Alexander wished above all, as he told his generals before the battle, that each man would see himself as a crucial part of the mission. They would certainly see this more clearly if each of them looked more like their heroic commander.
— Adapted from Of Beards and Men: The Revealing History of Facial Hair, by Christopher Oldstone-Moore, published by the University of Chicago Press in January
Alexander the Great | Egypt History
Alexander III of Macedon or who commonly known Alexander the Great Was the king of the great ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon. He was born in Pella in 356 BC. Most of his role life was spent in military campaigns through Asia and Northeast Africa, he managed to form one of the most powerful empires in the ancient ages when he was only thirty, stretching from Greece to northwest India, he is considered as one of the history&rsquos most successful military commanders.
Alexander&rsquos Legacy includes the cultural diffusion which his conquests engendered. He established twenty cities that carry his name, most popular is Alexandria in Egypt. His legendary as a classical hero in the achilles and he always featured importantly in the history of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. He became an icon for the military leaders to compare with his performance.
Nowadays, the military academies all over the world still teach his tactics in wars thus he ranked among the most influential people in history.
Alexander The Great and Egypt
He arrived in Egypt in 332 BC. After defeating the Persian emperor Darius for control of Syria and the Levant, Alexander marched to Egypt. At the time, Egypt was a satrapy in the Persian Empire, held loosely under Persian control since the decline of the Ancient Egyptian Empire at the end of the 7th century BC. Alexander and his army of Greeks were regarded as liberators and to cement the Oracle of Amun at Siwa Oasis pronounced him the new &lsquomaster of the universe&rsquo and a descendent of the Egyptian god Amun.
Alexander did not stay in Egypt long. By 331 BC he was on his way west to complete his conquest of the Persian Empire, but the impact of his conquest in Egypt was significant. Alexander respected Egyptian culture and religion, but he installed a Greek government to control his administration of Egypt. Greek influence in Egypt was reinforced by the settlement of Greek veterans throughout Egypt, where they became a privileged aristocracy that gradually assimilated with the Egyptians. Alexander also founded a new Greek capital, Alexandria, located on the Mediterranean at the mouth of the Nile.
Although Alexander would never return to Egypt, dying in Babylon in 323 BC, the Greek rule that he established proved more enduring. In the crisis after Alexander&rsquos death, Ptolomy, one of his generals, claimed Egypt as his kingdom and established hereditary rule. The Ptolomaic Dynasty would last until the Romans conquered Egypt in 32 BC.
Alexandria emerged as a great city in the Mediterranean and a center of Hellenism, spreading Greek learning and culture. It was the site of the legendary Ancient Library of Alexandria and the Pharos Lighthouse, which was built on the site where Qaitbey Citadel stands today.
Alexander the Great: Military History
Alexander the great has a legendary record of undefeated wars , first against the achaemenid Persian under the command of Darius III then, against local chieftains and arlords as far east as punjab, India, this Alexander regarded one of the most successful military commanders in history. Despite his military victories, he failed to provide an alternative to Achaemenid empire. After his death his huge territories he conquered threw them into civil war.
Alexander takeover the kingship of Macedonia following the death of his father Philip II, who unified most of the city states of mainland Greece under Macedonian called Hellenic League. After uniting city-states of Macedonia after his father death, Alexander set out east against the Achaemenid Persian Empire under the &ldquoking of kings&rdquo Darius II, who he defeated and overthrew.
His conquests include Anatolia, Syria, Gaza, Egypt, Persia and he extended the borders of his empire to Punjab, India.
As a brilliant military commander, Alexander the great had made before his death for military expansions into the arabian peninsula, However, Alexander&rsquos diadochi abandoned these plans after his death. then, they started to fight with each other, dividing up the empire between themselves and continue 40 years of wars.
He Won Battles While Outnumbered
“The Alexander Mosaic” depicting the Battle of Issus, Naples Archaeological Museum, discovered in Pompeii
Alexander the Great fought two pitched battles against the Persians, the Battle of Issus and the Battle of Gaugamela . In both encounters, he faced at least 10,000 more men, and may have been outnumbered by two to one or more. Alexander’s strategy in each case was to launch a targeted attack against Darius, the Great King of Persia . If he could capture, kill, or force the king to flee, the Persian army would likely collapse. He succeeded in driving the king from the field on both occasions. As expected, the Persians soon broke and ran, taking devastating casualties as the pursuing Macedonians cut them down.
Relief depicting the Battle of Gaugamela , 18th century AD, National Archaeological Museum of Spain, Madrid
Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela was a skillful use of tactics and a testament to the independent competence of Alexander’s generals. While the main body of the line held ground against the main assault of the opposing Persians, Alexander and his companion cavalry drew the Persian left away from the battlefield, opening up a gap in their line. They then wheeled back and drove straight for Darius at the middle of the line. Although Darius escaped and hoped to mount another defense, he was unable to gather another army. Gaugamela effectively ended the domination of the Persian Empire, and Darius’s own officers eventually betrayed and murdered him. Alexander became the Great King of Persia at the age of twenty-six, ruler of the largest empire to date.
Crossed the Hellespont
After solidifying his rule of Macedonia and Greece, Alexander looked east to Asia and the Persian Empire, which was led by Darius III. Alexander assembled an allied Greek army of 5,000 cavalry and 32,000 infantry to avenge the Persian invasion of Greece in 490 B.C. With 60 naval vessels, Alexander crossed the Hellespont (a narrow strait separating Europe and Asia - now called the Dardanelles) in 334 B.C. From his ship, Alexander threw his spear onto the shore. As he took his first steps in Asia, he pulled his weapon from the sand and declared that these lands would be won by the spear.
But the first order of business was a little tourism! Being quite fond of the Trojan War story -- to the point of keeping a copy of Homer's Iliad tucked under his pillow -- Alexander made a special trip to Troy to perform several sacrifices and to trade some of his armor for a sacred shield in the Temple of Athena.
Alexander the Great vs. The Roman Empire
At its height the Roman Empire covered over two million square miles, about one fourth of the current United States. The Roman Empire began in the year 330 BC and died out in 1453 AD. Its start was only 7 years before the fall and death of Alexander the Great. Because of the success of Alexander the Great there is no doubt that the Romans took notice of what he did as they plotted their expansion. The Romans derived many of their military tactics from Alexander the Great, but they also incorporated military tactics that were different from Alexander the Great’s strategy.
Alexander and the Romans each used their navies differently. The Roman Navy was considered to be the most prestigious and powerful branch of its military. The Romans navy patrolled the Mediterranean Sea combating pirates and other naval enemies that would harm Roman ships. They also used their navy to supply and transport their troops into other parts of the Mediterranean region. (Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army, 114). Alexander’s conquest spread throughout the Mediterranean Region, he had complete control of the sea and its ports. Alexander needed his navy so his enemies could not use theirs. He blockaded their ports to cut off trade and supply. That was his weakness and his enemies were always trying to capitalize on this. Alexander’s army had become so powerful that he did not need his navy as much, but the Romans did. (Cartledge, Alexander The Great, 150).
The Romans and Alexandrians relied on their navies differently. Alexander’s military preferred to fight on land over sea. Alexander did not need his navy as much because most of his conquest took place on land-locked Persia. Alexander also did not see his navy as a very valuable asset. (Cartledge, 123). The Roman ships evolved and became much more powerful and better trained. The Romans took the time to develop a navy which grew to be a dominant force in their conquest. Their navy was their main asset because Italy was surrounded by water. If Alexander had taken time like the Romans did, his navy would have become a strong military asset, but it would not have been necessary because of how dominant his army was. (Caven, The Punic Wars, 27).
The Persians had a very powerful navy that Alexander had to eliminate in order to expand his empire. “So Alexander, who had no navy worthy of mention, quickly neutralized the enemy’s advantage by attacking seaports from land and destroying the hostile fleet’s support bases.” (Seize the Night). Alexander’s only choice to winning was to use his army by land to weaken the Persian’s navy. Alexander had the most powerful army but the Persian navy was always trying to exploit his navy. Taking out this naval asset turned the tide of the invasion. Earlier when the Persians invaded the Greeks it was a huge victory of the Athenian navy over the Persian navy at Salamis that stopped their invasion. During these ancient wars, the navy proved to be a huge asset and whoever could stop the other navy first usually won the war.
The Roman army was able to attract more soldiers than Alexander’s army. The Alexandrian army was made up of Greek soldiers and Macedonians. Alexander’s soldiers were fighting for Greece and pride. The Greek soldiers had a pride that gave them a boost in those crucial battles. The Greeks had been fighting the Persians for so long that they had a built up hatred. Some of Alexander’s soldiers were not as strong because he had to enlist help wherever he could find it unlike the Romans. Alexander did not have a central location that he returned to after battles. He was always on the move, conquering and living on the battlefields. Alexander could not return after each battle to resupply his soldiers. (Guy Rodgers, Alexander, 69). The Romans in contrast, recruited their soldiers from the best. Their large population and central location allowed them to choose who they wanted in their army, and they recruited the finest. The Roman ability to pick and choose gave them a more solid supply of soldiers and a strong military. (Goldsworthy, 51).
The goals of the Romans and Greeks were also different. The Greek goal was Greek pride. The Greeks were very prideful people, and that was most important to them. It is what they believed in and fought hardest for. (Alexander, 70). The Roman soldiers’ goal was to be given full Roman citizenship for their service. That Roman citizenship was what people wanted in that day. The Romans bribed soldiers to stay in service because they knew how much people wanted to be Roman citizens. They did not have the pride that the Greeks did but they did have a reason to fight. The Romans were more like athletes because they were fighting for the reward of citizenship and do not care as much about national pride. (Goldsworthy 51).
The Roman and Alexandrian army forces consisted of similar units. Alexander had a cavalry and infantry leading into battle. The Romans had lighter armed soldiers backing up their front lines surrounded by cavalry. The Roman and Alexandrian ranks were similar in this sense. (The Roman World From 753-146 BC, 337). The Romans also used the phalanx which Alexander adapted from the Spartans. The phalanx is made up of many rows of soldiers pushing forward to the front. The men in front would in turn stab oncoming enemies. Soldiers who were a part of the phalanx would defend the person fighting next to them and if someone fell the person behind them would jump right in. It was the most dominant military formation used in the ancient times. This is one of the striking similarities between the two dominant empires of the Romans and the Alexandrians. (Alexander, 70).
The Alexandrians and Romans relied heavily on the phalanx formation. Alexander’s men had long spears. The long spears were key for the phalanx formation. Alexander adopted the original phalanx which fought with swords. The spears provided more damage and had longer range. (Fisher, Alexander the Great Seize the Night). The Romans also had the lighter armed soldiers in the back. They did not need the strong armor in the back because they were not constantly attacked by the opposing soldiers. They also put the less strong soldiers in front because it was where people were in more danger in the phalanx formation. The Romans continued to use this formation, but Alexander’s was much stronger. (The Roman World).
Alexander and the Romans had different tactics to get rid of mounted enemies.
The armed chariots used in war by Antiochus and Mithridates at first terrified the Romans, but they afterwards made a jest of them. As a chariot of this sort does not always meet with plain and level ground, the least obstruction stops it. And if one of the horses be either killed or wounded, it falls into the enemy's hands. The Roman soldiers rendered them useless chiefly by the following contrivance: at the instant the engagement began, they strewed the field of battle with caltrops, and the horses that drew the chariots, running full speed on them, were infallibly destroyed. A caltrop is a machine composed of four spikes or points arranged so that in whatever manner it is thrown on the ground, it rests on three and presents the fourth upright. (Brevik, Digital Attic).
The Romans took out the chariots by using a type of throwing star. This disabled the Turkish chariots and forced the enemy to fight on ground, giving the Romans a significant military advantage. Alexander used stealth techniques to take out his mounted opponents. He especially had a problem with elephants. Although mesmerized by elephants, he had to conquer many. This was successful in surprising the slow and easily startled elephants. Both dominant empires found ways to topple mounted enemies which had become problematic opponents. (Nossov, War Elephants, pg. 19).
The Roman and Alexandrian armies had a variety of different armors. Alexander’s armor consisted of “vest made in Sicily and over this a breast plate of two ply linen taken from the spoils of Issos. The helmet he wore was a work of Theopholis made of iron” (Alexander, 113). Alexander’s troops had much protection on their head and chest. This could be because their troops were more valuable and not as replaceable as the Romans who also had protective armor but not as heavy. The Romans carried more light armor for better mobility. To the Romans speed was more important than defense. They did not fight like a unit as much as the Alexandrians did, it was more stagnant and vicious. If the Alexandrians had had more of a constant flow of incoming soldiers they could have played a more aggressive attack as the Romans did. (The Roman World).
The Romans and Alexandrians used similar weaponry. Alexander had “pike men with sarissas, 14 foot long pikes twice the length of normal spears. Supporting the sarissa units were highly mobile light infantry and cavalry troops.” (Alexander the Great Seize the Night). These pike men were very helpful when in the phalanx formation. Also the light infantry was very strong in open battle.
The infantry (armatura) was heavy, because they had helmets (cassis), coats of mail (catafracta), greaves (ocrea), shields (scutum), larger swords (gladius maior), which they call broadswords (spatha), and some smaller, which they name half-broadswords (semispathium), five weighted darts (plumbata) placed in the shields, which they hurl at the beginning of the assault, then double throwables, a larger one with an iron point of nine ounces and a stock of five and one-half feet, which was called a pilum, but now is called a spiculum, in the use of which the soldiers were especially practiced, and with skill and courage could penetrate the shields of the infantry and the mail of the cavalry. The other smaller had five ounces of iron and a stock of three and one-half feet, and was called a vericulum but now is a verutum. The first line, of hastati, and the second, of principes, were composed of such arms. Behind them were the bearers (ferentarius) and the light infantry, whom now we say are the supporters and the infantry, shield-bearers (scutum) with darts (plumbata), swords (gladius) and missiles, armed just as are nearly all soldiers today. There were likewise bowmen (sagittarius) with helmet (cassis), coat of mail (catafracta), sword (gladius), arrows (sagitta) and bow (arcus). There were slingers (funditor) who slung stones (lapis) in slings (funda) or cudgel-throwers (fustibalus). There were artillery-men (tragularius), who shot arrows from the manuballista and the arcuballista. (Roman Infantry Equipment, Stephenson, 56).
The front of the Roman line was strongly stocked like Alexander’s. Towards the back they had the light infantry which was also similar to Alexander’s. Later in their empire, the Romans incorporated the larger spears for thrusting. The Romans and Alexandrian forces had similar weaponry that lead to their dominance.
The forces of both supreme armies had leaders that believed they were gods. “Another statue of Caesar was placed in the temple of Quirinus with the inscription ‘To the Invincible God.’” (UNRV History, Heaton). Caesar and other leaders believed that they were gods. This sense of being a god gave a sense of immortality. This caused a supreme confidence in these leaders which would explain their aggressiveness.
After a visit to the great Egyptian temples, Alexander came to believe in his own divine origin. His troops, who already worshiped him for his leadership and tremendous bravery in the midst of the fiercest fighting, seemed to have little difficulty in accepting his godliness” (Seize the Night).
Alexander was aggressive in battle. Even when it looked like victory was impossible against the virtually unstoppable Persians, Alexander’s aggression led him to victory. This god-like power was a main reason these empires were so successful. Being like a deity led to confidence. (Seize the Night).
The sense of deity of these military leaders led to their deaths and in some cases the end of their empire.
He believed he was immortal, Alexander had not groomed or named a replacement. His only guidance had been to leave his empire in the hands “of the strongest.” Unfortunately, no one had the strength of Alexander. Within a year, his empire and army broke into a multitude of warring factions, and Alexander’s empire ceased to exist. (Seize the Night).
Alexander ultimately died from malaria after bathing in a cold river. He did not believe that he was mortal and did not think of the consequences of his actions. Once Alexander went down, his empire collapsed around him. Caesar, on the other hand, knew of the possibility of something going wrong. He could not resist the idea of being named king, which is what the senators said to lure him to the trap. This would add to his god-likeness which he thought of as most important even if it risked his life. The idea of god-likeness led to the deaths of two of the most important rulers in ancient world history. Alexander’s death led to the end of his empire. Caesar died at only the beginning of the Roman Empire. (UNRV Roman History).
The Roman and Alexandrian forces were similar in many ways. The close proximity in time periods contributed to these military similarities. The Romans took notice of how dominant Alexander was when he was conquering the area and mimicked some of his tactics. They saw how he never stopped his aggression and reconstructed tactics like the phalanx formation. The Romans also added the dominant navy which made them strong. The one characteristic of Alexander was his Greek pride, and no empire could ever recreate the depth of pride the ancient Greeks embodied.
Alexander the Great was born in the Pella region of the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia on July 20, 356 B.C., to parents King Philip II of Macedon and Queen Olympia, daughter of King Neoptolemus. The young prince and his sister were raised in Pella&aposs royal court. Growing up, the dark-eyed and curly-headed Alexander hardly ever saw his father, who spent most of his time engaged in military campaigns and extra-marital affairs. Although Olympia served as a powerful role model for the boy, Alexander grew to resent his father&aposs absence and philandering.
Alexander received his earliest education under the tutelage of his relative, the stern Leonidas of Epirus. Leonidas, who had been hired by King Phillip to teach Alexander math, horsemanship and archery, struggled to control his rebellious student. Alexander&aposs next tutor was Lysimachus, who used role-playing to capture the restless boy&aposs attention. Alexander particularly delighted in impersonating the warrior Achilles.
In 343 B.C., King Philip II hired the philosopher Aristotle to tutor Alexander at the Temple of the Nymphs at Meiza. Over the course of three years, Aristotle taught Alexander and a handful of his friends philosophy, poetry, drama, science and politics. Seeing that Homer&aposs Iliad inspired Alexander to dream of becoming a heroic warrior, Aristotle created an abridged version of the tome for Alexander to carry with him on military campaigns.
Alexander completed his education at Meiza in 340 B.C. A year later, while still just a teen, he became a soldier and embarked on his first military expedition, against the Thracian tribes. In 338, Alexander took charge of the Companion Cavalry and aided his father in defeating the Athenian and Theban armies at Chaeronea. Once Philip II had succeeded in his campaign to unite all the Greek states (minus Sparta) into the Corinthian League, the alliance between father and son soon disintegrated. Philip married Cleopatra Eurydice, niece of General Attalus, and ousted Alexander&aposs mother, Olympia. Alexander and Olympia were forced to flee Macedonia and stay with Olympia&aposs family in Epirus until Alexander and King Philip II were able to reconcile their differences.
Aristotle (384 &ndash 322 B.C.), was a Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. Aristotle's writings were the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality, aesthetics, logic, science, politics, and metaphysics.
Aristotle's views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by Newtonian physics. In the zoological sciences, some of his observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which was incorporated in the late 19th century into modern formal logic. In metaphysics, Aristotelianism had a profound influence on philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions in the middle Ages, and it continues to influence Christian theology, especially the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church. Aristotle was well known among medieval Muslim intellectuals and revered as "The First Teacher". His ethics, though always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics. All aspects of Aristotle's philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today. Though Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises and dialogues (Cicero described his literary style as "a river of gold"), it is thought that the majority of his writings are now lost and only about one-third of the original works have survived.
Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great was king of Macedonia and one of the greatest generals in history. He conquered the Persian Empire which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to India. Although he died at the age of 33 he conquered most of the known world at that time and spread Greek ideas and customs to western Asia and Egypt.
Alexander was born in 356 B.C. in Pella, the capital of Macedonia, a part of northern Greece but at that time an ancient kingdom . He was the son of Philip II, king of Macedonia, a strong ruler who conquered most cities of ancient Greece and was planning to take control of the Persian Empire .
When Alexander was thirteen years old, the Greek philosopher Aristotle came to Macedonia to teach him. He was trained in military strategy and planning but was also interested in art and sciences . At eighteen Alexander became commander of a part of the army and fought against Greek soldiers .
Alexander becomes king
When Philip was murdered in 336 B.C. Alexander became king of Macedonia and continued his father&rsquos plans for invading Asia. In 334 he led an army across the Hellespont &ndash the narrow strait between Europe and Asia &ndash with 30,000 foot soldiers and 5,000 men on horseback. At the Granicus River he defeated a much larger group of Persians. Along the way he freed Greek cities that were under Persian rule and made them his allies .
When Alexander came to the city of Gordium in Asia Minor , today&rsquos Turkey, a legend tells us that he was shown a strange, complex knot . The person who could untie the Gordian knot would be the ruler of all of Asia. Alexander tried hard but could not untie it with his hands, so he drew out is sword and cut the knot in a single stroke .
Defeat of Darius
In 333 Alexander met the Persian king Darius III at Isus in Syria. Darius lost the battle but was able to flee . Later in that year Alexander reached Egypt and freed it from Persian rule . The Egyptians welcomed Alexander made him their pharaoh. Near the delta of the Nile river he founded a new city and named it Alexandria. After that Alexander continued his search of King Darius. Both leaders met near the village of Gaugamela, which is in today&rsquos Iraq. There he defeated the Persian king. Darius was murdered by his own people and Alexander became the new ruler of Persia.
Journey to India
From 329 to 326 Alexander led his army through the mountain regions of south-western Asia to the borders of India. He explored the Indus valley and wanted to push eastward as far as the Ganges River. However his soldiers became tired and refused to follow Alexander any further . In 325 Alexander decided to turn back. He built ships and some of his men sailed home. He commanded the others through the Asian desert but many of his soldiers died on their way home.
After returning to Persia he held a feast to celebrate the capture of the Persian Empire . As part of his effort to unify Persians and Macedonians, Alexander and 80 of his men married Persian women.