What historical figures did he speak about? Do you agree?
Pope Francis Spoke about Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. The Pope referred to them as American heroes and he even gave a speech at Independence Hall and even used a lectern that Lincoln used in the Gettysburg Address. The Pope also quoted Lincoln on his remarks about immigration and religious freedom. Pope Francis spoke about poverty, immigration, religion, climate change, capital punishment and more. I do agree with the Pope, he gave his opinion on current issues but also made time to do the little things, that mattered to the people. I agree with what the Pope, he said that our country is strong because we stay true to our founding principles which are based on respect for human dignity.
What important individuals would you select to identify in your speech as great? Why?
I would select to identify Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. I would select these people as great because Rosa Parks fought for her rights and she persevered even though at that time everyone thought she was doing the wrong thing. I also chose Martin Luther King Jr. because he wanted equal rights for everyone no matter your race. He one of my definitions of greatness because at that time, he was saying something, that most people would’ve disagreed with. He is a definition of greatness because he stood up for what he believed was right and the best for the country as a whole and spoke his ideas no matter what other people said about him or his ideas.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Who Really Was Alexander the “Great?”
Alexander the Great
Alexander the Great is given more than enough credit when it comes to his accomplishments during his reign over Macedonia. Alexander is pictured as a heroic king; much like a god; who has little to no flaws. Because of many scholars at that time, and even now, Alexander the Great is often considered “great” but, he repeatedly neglected to improve the government he inherited from his father, and he often received discontent from his people about his alcoholic choices. Alexander’s character supported his hunger to conquer additional land and satisfy his wish for a vast empire. Throughout his lifetime, Alexander often couldn’t satisfy his people through his choices he made on how to run his enormous empire. His visions weren’t what people thought was best for their empire, and wasn’t who they saw as their ideal king.
During Alexander’s reign, improving the government he inherited from his father wasn’t a top priority for him. Although his father had built up most of the empire, and had already cultivated it to the empire’s full potential, Alexander kept Macedonia relatively untouched; the way he had received it from his father.According to an ABC-Clio article written by Ellen Bailo, “...many of the native officials whom he appointed or kept in power later had to be replaced. Generally speaking, Alexander adapted existing administrative structures rather than imposing new ones,” (Bailo). Alexander the Great wanted to grow a mass empire without controlling things back home in Macedonia. She then continues to say, “During Alexander's lifetime, the only common thread among the territories he controlled was his own personal power, which contributed to the breakup of his empire after his death.” (Bailo). After Alexander died, his kingdom was split up between his high ranking administrative personnel. Ellen Bailo depicts that because Alexander didn’t have intentions on improving his government, that after his death, it was split up because there was disagreement among the people about his actions on merging many different types of cultures. It is hard to tell whether Alexander’s accomplishments are true because, “We have a fair amount of information for events in mainland Greece, especially Athens, during the reign of Alexander, however events in Macedon in this period are undocumented and largely unknown,” (Worthington). Professor Ian Worthington states that it is hard to gauge whether Alexander’s achievements were truly his or just a matter of luck and bribery of money. Alexander may have had great accomplishments, but when he was at war, he was often caught in a drunken rage or alcoholic state.
It is believed by many that Alexander the Great had been under an alcoholic state during most of his reign. He wasn’t seen as “great” because when he was in intoxicated, and he was repeatedly reckless. Ian Worthington then says this about Alexander, “here was also the worrying news from those who did return home of Alexander’s drunken rages which resulted in him killing -- either by his own hands or from false implication in conspiracies -- some of those close to him, his paranoia, his orientalism,” (Worthington). Alexander the “Great” would often be found killing people who frustrated him at the time while he was induced with alcohol. His character and morals dictated most of what he did throughout his life, his choices later in his life were greatly affected by what he had set his heart on in the first place.
Alexander’s character and morals were the center of all his decisions. Alexander had set his heart on showing new things to the world. He lived in fear for the first part of his life, because his father had shown everything to his country and there would be nothing left for him to discover. When Alexander was young, he was to carry out his father’s plan of invading Persia, but soon after the invasion of Persia, he found he wanted to conquer more land. This is Professor Ian Worthington’s opinion on Alexander the Great,
“However, does a man deserve to be called ‘The Great’ who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of his own men and for the unnecessary wholesale slaughter of native peoples? How ‘great’ is a king who prefers constant warfare over consolidating conquered territories and long-term administration? Or who, through his own recklessness, often endangered his own life andthe lives of his men? Or whose violent temper on occasion led him to murder his friends and who towards the end of his life was an alcoholic, paranoid, megalomaniac, who believed in his own divinity?” (Worthington).
Ian Worthington believes that spending more time with your kingdom is more important that going out and conquering more land without attending to the needs back home. Alexander merely wanted to have a vast empire in which he could rule, but didn’t want to take the building block to that point, he wanted to go straight there without anything in between. Alexander may have gotten what he wanted in life, but his empire was far from pleased with what the turnout was for them.
Although Alexander did have many accomplishments throughout his lifetime, he didn’t have the right intentions for them. Alexander didn’t want to improve his government and do the work to get to a vast, powerful empire, instead he went straight for what he saw he wanted and started conquering anything and everything he could lay his hands on. During most of Alexander’s life, he was intoxicated, and most of his decisions were made in this state. Ian Worthington believes that Alexander shouldn't be referred to as great because, “However, the impression which strikes us about the Macedonians themselves is that Alexander was far from their idea of an ideal king,” (Worthington). Alexander shouldn’t be considered great because of his intentions of what he wanted in life. Great isn’t a title that should be given to Alexander because of the countless and inhumane choices he had made during his lifetime.
MLA Works Cited:
Bialo, Ellen. "career of Alexander the Great." World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras.
ABC-CLIO, 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.
Worthington, Ian. “How ‘Great’ Was Alexander?” www.utexas.edu/courses. Texas, 1999.
