Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oligarch)
    His empire was starting to collapse even before he died though?
    Umm not really. He was planning invading Arabia when he died. He had some troubles conquering some territories and had to back off also his bestfriend/lover died but you can't say his empire collapsed because he couldn't conquer everything he tried to.
    After his death though everything went down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nicholas Cage, Philip Seymour Hoffman & Ghandi.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SiminaM)
    Umm not really. He was planning invading Arabia when he died. He had some troubles conquering some territories and had to back off also his bestfriend/lover died but you can't say his empire collapsed because he couldn't conquer everything he tried to.
    After his death though everything went down.
    Surely, the importance of someone's legacy is what remains after their death. Of what worth is sheer reach if it is not followed by consolidation, it is like revising and then failing the exam. What about some of the early Roman Emperors they remained undefeated. What about Scipio Africanus who by defeating Hannibal and maybe securing the future of the Roman Empire?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Elizabeth Woodsville.
    Margaret Beaufort.
    Elizabeth of York.
    Elizabeth I.

    Michael Collins.
    Eamon DeValera.
    Charles Stewart Parnell.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oligarch)
    Surely, the importance of someone's legacy is what remains after their death. Of what worth is sheer reach if it is not followed by consolidation, it is like revising and then failing the exam. What about some of the early Roman Emperors they remained undefeated. What about Scipio Africanus who by defeating Hannibal and maybe securing the future of the Roman Empire?
    Why is it his fault that his people weren't capable of keeping the empire? He was 16 when he had to rule and he died at 32. I'd say he was pretty awesome and it is unfair to say that he wasn't a great ruler just because after his death the people didn't keep the empire together... How is that his fault? He left a legacy and his people couldn't keep it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Tupac Amaru Shakur
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SiminaM)
    Yes but he is the GreatEST. His life is like a legend.
    In your opinion. It is a shame that whilst Alexander the Great is more well known than Alfred the Great in this country. The idea of a unified England first originated with Alfred and it was under him and his successors that England as an entity was created. It's impossible to say how the history of this country would have panned out without Alfred and his ideals. Much more relevant than Alexander the Great's conquests.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CescaD96)
    Elizabeth Woodsville.
    Margaret Beaufort.
    Elizabeth of York.
    Elizabeth I.

    Michael Collins.
    Eamon DeValera.
    Charles Stewart Parnell.
    Elizabeth I is vastly overrated, however the others I do not know that much about except for Parnell (who succeeded particularly in alienating William Ewart Gladstone previously a staunch ally with his affair with the wife of Captain O Shea).

    However, I remember reading something by the historian David Starkey where he suggested that the role of many royal women (particularly that of Henry VIII's wives has been vastly overstated in an attempt to appease feminists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SiminaM)
    Why is it his fault that his people weren't capable of keeping the empire? He was 16 when he had to rule and he died at 32. I'd say he was pretty awesome and it is unfair to say that he wasn't a great ruler just because after his death the people didn't keep the empire together... How is that his fault? He left a legacy and his people couldn't keep it.
    A persons legacy is important. Oliver Cromwell the always overlooked leader helped set in motion the apparatus e.g.. The Navy, that would help the birth of the British Empire an empire which makes Alexander to so called 'greats' own empire look pitiful and was perhaps the greatest empire of all time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Jack the ripper. :scrooge:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CarpeDiem.)
    Jack the ripper. :scrooge:
    Well you could say he was just trying to clean up the streets.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirMasterKey)
    In your opinion. It is a shame that whilst Alexander the Great is more well known than Alfred the Great in this country. The idea of a unified England first originated with Alfred and it was under him and his successors that England as an entity was created. It's impossible to say how the history of this country would have panned out without Alfred and his ideals. Much more relevant than Alexander the Great's conquests.
    Oh, but I am not from the UK. Don't make assumptions so fast. And yes I know of Alfred the Great but in my opinion Alexnder the Great is the most impressive historical carachter.
    Also, you can't compare.Alexander with Alfred. Alexander lived in 330 or like this before Christ and Alfred lived in the ninth century when the european states were beginning to form or were already forming. It's a difference of over 1000 years it is IRRELEVANT to compare what they did as the times were soooo different.
    You may choose whoever you want btw it is your opinion.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by oligarch)
    Elizabeth I is vastly overrated, however the others I do not know that much about except for Parnell (who succeeded particularly in alienating William Ewart Gladstone previously a staunch ally with his affair with the wife of Captain O Shea).

    However, I remember reading something by the historian David Starkey where he suggested that the role of many royal women (particularly that of Henry VIII's wives has been vastly overstated in an attempt to appease feminists.
    It's true she is overrated, but I've always admired her not marrying, giving up her country essentially.

    Parnell, well, he was the one to actually get the English Parliament talking about Home Rule for Ireland. That divorce scandal ruined him, and played a part in effectively killing him.

    Starkey has been favourable towards Elizabeth Woodsville, her daughter Elizabeth of York, and Margaret Beaufort. I will agree that Henry VIII's wives (most especially Anne Boleyn and IMO Catherine Parr) are overrated to an extent to appease feminism. I will admit I am a feminist (not extreme, no way!) but I've been into history for a lot longer.

    As for Mick Collins and Dev, I admire them for their huge part in bringing the British government into talks in 1919. I like Collins a lot more though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Professor Brian Cox if I can pick people still alive
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am making history right now, so myself.

    I am eating a bacon sandwich.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Eminem for people still alive.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirMasterKey)
    In your opinion. It is a shame that whilst Alexander the Great is more well known than Alfred the Great in this country. The idea of a unified England first originated with Alfred and it was under him and his successors that England as an entity was created. It's impossible to say how the history of this country would have panned out without Alfred and his ideals. Much more relevant than Alexander the Great's conquests.

    Let's not forget that Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire and Egypt, and the subsequent kingdoms that resulted from the collapse of the Alexandrine empire, all helped to set the Hellenistic Era in motion, which proved pto be pivotal for human science, philosophy and the development of Greek and western thought, without which even England wouldn't be what it is today. Alexandria wouldn't exist without Alexander, and it became a huge traiding and intellectual hub even into Roman times.

    The effects of Alexander's conquests can be seen all the way to Asia actually. Alexander built Greek colonies in what is now modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan. Upon the collapse of the Empire, these colonies remained isolated but continued to flourish for centuries. The Greeks eventually converted from polytheisim to Buddhism and introduced life-like sculpture as an art form to the local Buddhists in the region known as Ghandara. Before that, Buddha was never pictured in form of a Human sculpture. So as you can see, that Alexander was indirectly infulential to the development of one of the world's greatest religions.

    Just google info about the Indo-Greek and Greco-Bactrian Kingdom as well as Greco-Buddhist art.

    Alex was pretty damn great :P
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Jan Smuts.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Giuseppe Garibaldi springs to mind.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SiminaM)
    Oh, but I am not from the UK. Don't make assumptions so fast. And yes I know of Alfred the Great but in my opinion Alexnder the Great is the most impressive historical carachter.
    Also, you can't compare.Alexander with Alfred. Alexander lived in 330 or like this before Christ and Alfred lived in the ninth century when the european states were beginning to form or were already forming. It's a difference of over 1000 years it is IRRELEVANT to compare what they did as the times were soooo different.
    You may choose whoever you want btw it is your opinion.
    Apologies for the wrong assumption.

    It is your opinion but it is still possible o have a healthy debate over it, is it not?

    You can compare their legacies together even if there times were so different, just as you can look at what their relevance is today when we are in a whole new world as well.

    (Original post by AVGA17)
    Let's not forget that Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire and Egypt, and the subsequent kingdoms that resulted from the collapse of the Alexandrine empire, all helped to set the Hellenistic Era in motion, which proved pto be pivotal for human science, philosophy and the development of Greek and western thought, without which even England wouldn't be what it is today. Alexandria wouldn't exist without Alexander, and it became a huge traiding and intellectual hub even into Roman times.

    The effects of Alexander's conquests can be seen all the way to Asia actually. Alexander built Greek colonies in what is now modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan. Upon the collapse of the Empire, these colonies remained isolated but continued to flourish for centuries. The Greeks eventually converted from polytheisim to Buddhism and introduced life-like sculpture as an art form to the local Buddhists in the region known as Ghandara. Before that, Buddha was never pictured in form of a Human sculpture. So as you can see, that Alexander was indirectly infulential to the development of one of the world's greatest religions.

    Just google info about the Indo-Greek and Greco-Bactrian Kingdom as well as Greco-Buddhist art.

    Alex was pretty damn great :P
    I never denied that Alexander was great. I merely pointed out that there were more 'the Great's' scattered throughout history and it is a crying shame that in an age where people are turning more to the right and nationalism that they have little idea about where their own notion of nationalism came from. If you go onto any British high street then I do wonder if people would be able to name Alfred as the founder of England. Alexander was great. Alfred was great.

    Of course one of the most important 'what if' questions surrounding Alexander is most certainly what would have happened if his father had not been assassinated before setting off on his expansion plans having already set his base of power.

    This argument will probably then go all the way back to the dawn of time as when you look at Alexander the Great, you have to look at where the power initially came from and then you just go back further and further. I personally found Philip much more interesting to study when I was a student in first year. I should probably go back and look at all my notes on him as he is a fascinating character.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.