Alexander the Great, in my opinion, was dubbed great simply because of his accomplishments. But we've also witnessed many other leaders who have had the same exact success but have been in the shadows for a long time. He is "great" because he himself thought he was extraordinary, so if he wanted, he could have called himself whatever he wanted and his people would have still followed him and supported his decisions.
Yes, he is not so great when it came to what he did to his people, his arrogance, and his temper, but the man still was great in other areas, most importantly holding his position for the duration he did.
The article is definitely leaning towards the (not so great) side of the argument, but as MK wrote, it "could be done for any ruler, there is always evidence to argue good and bad, it just depends on how you look at it."
No comments:
Post a Comment