There are always two sides to every story but when it is a part of history usually one side is being told and the other side is being interpreted. This is the case with Alexander the Great and whether he should be able to keep his title “the Great”. Two scholars Ian Worthington and Paul Cartledge have very different views and interpretations on Alexanders ruling as king, his achievements as general, and what it means to be great.
The debate between Ian Worthington and Paul Cartledge is weather Alexander the Great deserves his title “the Great”. Ian Worthington believes that Alexander does not deserve this title. To him being “Great” for a king means how he rules, military accomplishments, and looking out for his people. Paul Cartledge believes …show more content…
His argument is preferable because he uses more facts and considers more components than just his military career. Paul Cartledge on the other hand argued by discussing details of life achievements and military achievements. He talks more about insignificant events and facts such as Alexander’s horse and his sexuality. These things do not affect his status as “the Great”. Cartledge did not discuss in detail why Alexander did deserve the title “the Great” besides his military career and mixing cultures. To improve Cartledges argument he should have talked about why the events he mentions makes him great instead he tells the story of Alexander through his interpretations.
Alexander does deserve the title “the Great”. His military career alone should prove that. Alexander was not as hash as the Spartans. When his troops refused to take another step, they stopped fighting. Also, him marrying what the Greeks would call barbarians, and picking up the Persian culture only proved how serious he was about being their ruler. Picking up their culture, language, and apparel could help gain their trust, and could make Alexander the Great feel accepted as their ruler. If Alexander the Great has been called this for thousands of years why would there be a debate to change it
The debate between Ian Worthington and Paul Cartledge is weather Alexander the Great deserves his title “the Great”. Ian Worthington believes that Alexander does not deserve this title. To him being “Great” for a king means how he rules, military accomplishments, and looking out for his people. Paul Cartledge believes …show more content…
His argument is preferable because he uses more facts and considers more components than just his military career. Paul Cartledge on the other hand argued by discussing details of life achievements and military achievements. He talks more about insignificant events and facts such as Alexander’s horse and his sexuality. These things do not affect his status as “the Great”. Cartledge did not discuss in detail why Alexander did deserve the title “the Great” besides his military career and mixing cultures. To improve Cartledges argument he should have talked about why the events he mentions makes him great instead he tells the story of Alexander through his interpretations.
Alexander does deserve the title “the Great”. His military career alone should prove that. Alexander was not as hash as the Spartans. When his troops refused to take another step, they stopped fighting. Also, him marrying what the Greeks would call barbarians, and picking up the Persian culture only proved how serious he was about being their ruler. Picking up their culture, language, and apparel could help gain their trust, and could make Alexander the Great feel accepted as their ruler. If Alexander the Great has been called this for thousands of years why would there be a debate to change it