The Instigator
picasa
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Squibstheman123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Alexander the Great great?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,043 times Debate No: 44179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

picasa

Pro

Was Alexander "Great"? No question; a military genius, and a role model for later conquerors such as Hannibal, Caesar and Napoleon, the Macedonian conquered almost all the then known world and gave a new direction to history, and all by the age of 33. Amazing. Yet, by the same token, Adolf Hitler was also "Great." His conquests were considerable, also by an early age, and Hitler also changed the course of history. (We all know Hitler was anything but wonderful; the word great is confined to the sense of great achievement.)

Now this is not to say Alexander was the equivalent of Hitler, regarded as the personification of evil. Yet conquerors can never be truly good -- because when one conquers, a lot of people can suffer, get killed, and hurt. All for the benefit of the conqueror's selfish ego, and betterment of nation. (We can take a modern example, as the invasion of Iraq. Most Americans would regard this as good, having reinforced U.S. power in the region, as much as most Americans have come to recognize the war as a selfish war of choice, and not necessity. Most Americans do not think or care about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who would have otherwise been alive today.)

But back to Alexander; and some consequences of his greatness:

Once his father Philip died and Alexander claimed the Macedonian throne, all domestic enemies were disposed of via execution.

Alexander was perfectly within his rights to keep the Macedonian empire intact, naturally, but when his dad"s death caused the conquered nations to rebel (Illyrians, Thracians, and Greeks), he acted ruthlessly. He made an example of Thebes, killing everyone in sight, women and children included. 6,000 Greeks were killed and 30,000 more were sold as slaves. This city where Alexander's father was kept as hostage for three years was plundered, and razed to the ground. (Revenge can be sweet -- and not far from one of the motivations of President Bush for ordering Iraq"s invasion, to get the tyrant who had once tried to kill Bush's "daddy.")

Alexander made an example of Thebes, to keep the Greek city-states fearful and in line, but one can suspect all of the Greek cities (and their inhabitants) that he conquered, particularly those along the coast of Asia Minor, were far from treated gingerly.
Squibstheman123

Con

Alexander is Great because he brought the Persian Empire to its knees, an Empire known for being greedy and wanting their own gain. Alexander wanted glory and greatness also, but he let people bask in his civilizing light. He let leaders stay on as puppet leaders if he respects you. He has a moral code in the battlefield not to strike like a coward, he is truly great in every sense.

He isn't comparable to Hitler because Hitler hated the Jews and killed them off, and believed in a white, Aryan race. Alexander the great had no such ideas in his mind, and he was not a coward like Hitler who targeted citizens in urban areas. As for his ego, every man has an ego, but men with large egos change the world. The Iraqi war can't be compared to Alexander because he never targeted civilians, he only attacked military forces unless it was impossible to avoid killing civilians. In the case of Thebes, Alexander the Great broke through their wall, but they continued to fight the Macedonians. He had to make an example of them because that was ridiculous. For that time most would have killed the entire city off, Alexander avoided critical damage, but also couldn't seem weak because then all the sacrifices his men made were for nothing. The city burned because the natives continued to resist, people in his day would have taken the prisoners and put them in prison mines to die miserably. He is great, you can point out his flaws, but he was Alexander the Great, not Alexander the Perfect.
Debate Round No. 1
picasa

Pro

picasa forfeited this round.
Squibstheman123

Con

Squibstheman123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
picasa

Pro

picasa forfeited this round.
Squibstheman123

Con

Squibstheman123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.