Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from essay:
Hamilton notes the biographies of Alexander often reflected the backgrounds of authors who wrote about him. For example, Sir William Tarn, a Scottish gentleman of the British imperial era, characterized Alexander as a chivalrous Greek gentleman with a missionary zeal to spread Greek civilization. In contrast, Fritz Schachermeyr, a German historian who had experienced the rise and fall of the Nazi Germany, described Alexander as a ruthless and cruel ruler, indulged "in deceit and treachery to gain his ends, as a 'Titanic' figure aiming at the conquest of the world."
Both Tarn and Schachermeyr are among the great modern historians of Alexander but even they could not escape personal biases.
The irony of Hamilton's book is that, although he is at pains in his discussion of the difficulty of writing about Alexander and is critical of biased historians, the book starts with a straightforward admission of a bias. Rejecting the claim that Alexander was a disseminator of Greek culture to so-called "barbarians," Hamilton writes: "his heredity and his background are more important; he remained, essentially, Macedonian. This explains his hard drinking (denied, significantly, by Tarn) and, where circumstances called for it, the ruthless elimination of rivals."
Now, the question is what does Alexander's hard drinking or his ruthlessness in eliminating rivals have anything to do with him being a Macedonian? Were they essential Macedonian traits? Were not there any hard drinkers or ruthless eliminators of rivals among Greeks? Were Greeks not capable of it? Hamilton's stereotypical characterization of Macedonians and Greeks borders on racism.
Hamilton's main goal is to argue that Alexander lacked any Hellenizing mission and remained essentially a Macedonian with military skills bestowed upon him by his father Philip and other Macedonians. But his attempt to prove a point weakens his thesis. Hamilton ascribes essential characteristics to Greek and Macedonians that do not do justice to human nature. Part of the reason for this problem is Hamilton's uncritical analysis of primary and ancient secondary sources. The story of Alexander is conveyed to us mostly in the Greek and Roman languages. Romans admired the Greeks, so they were not critical enough with Greek sources. The sources in ancient Greek obviously are biased in favor of Greeks, describing non-Greeks as barbarians and viewing even Macedonians with disdain.
Interestingly, Hamilton comes to similar conclusions about Alexander's legacy that Freeman does. He is also careful in discussing controversial topics such as Philip's murder or the destruction of Persepolis. When the evidences do not point at clear conclusions, Hamilton presents differing views and leaves it up to the reader to decide. But Hamilton's tone, unlike Freeman's, is partial. All of his arguments at the end lean toward his point that Alexander was "essentially" a Macedonian, following Macedonian traits and vices. In fact, both Hamilton and Freeman share the bias of looking at this particular history through the Greek eye. It is hard to fault them because the limited number sources are overwhelmingly Greek or Roman who were also biased in favor of Greeks. Neither of the scholars look at sources in ancient Persian or Hindu or engage the works of Persian and Indian historians.
Both Freeman and Hamilton present Alexander's conquests of Asia Minor and Central Asia from the perspective of the conquerors -- which is the primary weakness of both books. But with Greek sources and recent scholarship, both of them are careful. The only difference is that Hamilton tries to prove a point whereas Freeman wants to tell a story of Alexander that anyone can read. Hamilton writes with an obvious partial and argumentative tone, while Freeman simply tells a story where he remains impartial whether he discusses horrific atrocities or heroic deeds. Perhaps, that was the reason why Freeman does not even list Hamilton's book in the bibliography section (he lists Hamilton's another book). The contributions of neither of them, however, can be discounted, as both of them have important things to say about the life of Alexander the Great.
Freeman, Philip. Alexander the Great. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009.
Hamilton, J.R. Alexander the Great. Pittsburg: The University of Pittsburg Press, 1974.
Philip Freeman, Alexander the Great (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009), p. xxii.
Ibid, p. 323.
Ibid, p. 201.
Ibid, p. 330.
J.R. Hamilton, Alexander the Great (Pittsburg: The University of Pittsburg Press,…[continue]
"Alexander The Great Books On" (2011, October 26) Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/alexander-the-great-books-on-46889
"Alexander The Great Books On" 26 October 2011. Web.29 November. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/alexander-the-great-books-on-46889>
"Alexander The Great Books On", 26 October 2011, Accessed.29 November. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/alexander-the-great-books-on-46889
Instead, while under false arrest and retreating from the Macedonians, Darius was killed by one of his subjects. Because the battle at Gaugamela marked the turning point in the battle between the Macedonians and the Achaemenids, it is clear that if Darius was to have been able to defeat Alexander and his troops, he would have needed to do so before the battle at Gaugamela. Therefore, it is important to
Alexander saw himself as that philosopher-king who would install a new kind of cooperation and brotherhood with one or unified Greek culture, Hellenism, and speaking a common language, Greek (Smitha 1998). He intended that his subjects in the East would be reared and trained to become like the Greeks and Macedonians. In consolidating his huge territory, Alexander founded cities, mostly named Alexandria, in suitable and well-paved locations with sufficient supply
Both points-of-view may be absolutely correct, but neither really addresses the issue of whether or not Alexander was truly great. Perhaps the best way to evaluate Alexander's greatness is to look at the lasting effects that he had on civilization. First and foremost, Alexander conquered the known world. "Before Alexander world civilization had been dominated by eastern cultures - Persians, Egyptians, and Babylonians. Alexander shifted the spotlight once and for all.
Alexander the Great Western civilization has wide range of historical aspects and it encompasses civilization of ancient Rome, ancient Greece and a Judaic civilization. A civilization is said to exist from Stone Age until today, ranging from China to Egypt, Mesoamerica and Africa. Alexandros III (356-323 B.C.), Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, was one of the greatest military geniuses in history. He conquered and governed civilizations of that time, ruled by
82). While much of his theories are conjecture, it is quite clear from his Appendix, Bibliography, and Notes that he has conducted extensive research into Alexander and his life, and bases his theories on this exhaustive research. His theories may be conjecture, but it is clear he bases them on much historical fact, and so, they are easier to believe. I feel that the author has included enough new information
Proposals for action "must first convince the audience that a problem exists and make the audience want action. Often, these arguments consider ethical situations: if the situation is wrong, then the solution must make it right" ("Writing Tip #21). Alexander identifies his men as the cause of being able to claim so many cities; "through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias,
Philosophers and Great Leaders Ancient Greek philosophers will always have a distinct place in human history by giving shape to Western philosophical thought (Fieser 2014). That philosophical thought moved away from myth to a method based on reason and evidence. Although these philosophers' ways of exploring the world were diverse, they nonetheless set the pace for a single search for the underlying principles of everything. The most influential among them were