Rome Pocket Map

"Does Alexander the Great deserve to be called 'the Great'?

            I believe that Alexander the Great deserves to be called ‘The Great’ for many reasons, even though there are multiple reasons that suggest otherwise.  In my personal opinion, the trait that made him so great was his military skills and techniques.  For example, his military shrewdness allowed him to defeat the Persian army.  Greatly outnumbered and surrounded by Darius and his troops, Alexander’s troops were told to stand their ground and defended themselves.  His troops held off the Persians long enough for him to make an attack on a single opening in Darius’s line of defense.  Another military skill that Alexander possessed that attributes to his greatness was his general overall knowledge, not only of his empire, but also of those that surrounded his empire.  Alexander knew which fords were fordable by the army carrying heavy equipment, which rivers were navigable, where camping grounds were, and where good drinking water could be found.  Another trait that contributed to his greatness was his tenacity and spirit.  During times of low spirit, such as their crossing the deserts of Bactria and the Hindu Kush Mountains, Alexander cheered up his troops by running up and down the lines, shouting.  He picked up those who fell and offered encouragement.  His tenacity also played a major role in his conquering of Persia as well as the way he was perceived by others.  Due to Alexander’s perseverance and tenacity, he pushed on, even through times of famine, drought, or plague.  Nothing could stop him.  Enemies were even struck with fear at the rapid advance of Alexander’s army.  Alexander’s greatness can also be seen in the way he was perceived by others as well as the impression he left on much of the Middle East.  During his conquest, Alexander established numerous cities all named after him, many of which survive to this day.  These cities were and are still vital to the economies and trades of the areas in which they are located.  In this way, Alexander has marked his greatness on the world by creating cities.  Darius, despite the fact that he was waging a war against Alexander even praised Alexander on his deathbed and wished him luck in conquering Persia and becoming a world superpower as he had once been.  He additionally thanks Alexander for his kindness towards his own children and wife, even though they are prisoners of war

Lastly, Alexander’s personal strength attributes to his greatness.  He never gives up and is strong-willed.  He endures over twenty injuries over his lifetime, yet he never decides to stop advancing his empire.  He is pierced in the abdomen and his lungs are punctured; yet, he evades death and returns to his commanding position in the Greek army. 

            Though he can be seen as a great and influential leader, Alexander the Great had many traits that I see as despicable.  One such action he commits is the burning of Persepolis.  His trait of revenge takes advantage of him, and he commits many atrocities towards the Persians in retribution for the pain and suffering they caused many of the Greeks.  Another despicable deed committed by Alexander is that he massacres an entire Persian village to avenge the destruction of a Greek city that was destroyed by the Persians.  Even though the members of the Persian village are holding an olive branch, Alexander brutally and ruthlessly kills every one of them.  Lastly, Alexander was a violent man, who took actions that many perceive to be unthinkable.  He kills a man, Cleutis, who had saved his life years earlier because of an offensive statement.  Though Alexander can be seen as a violent man who had no regard for human life, it is safe to say the Alexander the Great deserves his title as one of the “Greatest” leaders of all time. 

India and Greece Comparison Article Questions

1. What’s McNeill’s argument?

·       In this paragraph, McNeil is arguing that despite the fact that the Minoans of ancient Greece and the Aryans of ancient India were both influenced by other people that bordered them, they both developed independently in significantly different ways.  This difference was partly because of their different ways of organizing and administering their societies.  These differences accounted for the dissimilarity of subsequent histories of Indian and European society.  

2. How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?

·       McNeil Defines caste as a “group of persons who sill eat with one another and intermarry, while excluding others from these two intimacies.”  He is essentially saying that the relations that are present among individuals determine castes.  If two individuals are close enough to marry or eat with each other, they should be considered to be of the same caste.  This significantly differs from the book’s definition of caste, which defines it as a hereditary classes of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status.  Instead of defining a caste based on social and political hierarchy, McNeil is basing it off of human relations.

3. What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste?

            1. The feeling of ceremonial purity – People of Indian society feared of contaminating themselves by associating themselves with people of lower class than them.  This primarily had to do with the skin colors (light-skinned Aryans and the darker-skinned Dravidians).  This resulted in people of high rank refusing to associate themselves with people or lower castes.

            2. The feeling of humbleness – One of the most important affects of the caste system was that all but the most miserable and marginal members of society could look down upon somebody.  Humbler groups had emerged from “primitive” forest life, therefore having different customs and habits.  These newcomers were persuaded to abandon their different ways and were assimilated into Indian society within a few generations.

            3. A theoretical doctrine: the doctrine of reincarnation and  “Varna.” – This declared that the men of Indian society were divided into four castes, the Brahmans, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas, and the Shudras.  This put a stress on the caste system, giving each caste a specific position in society.  However, this system stabilized the society and established an institution, which was hereditary from father to son.

4. Are these convincing?

·       These points are indeed convincing because they substantiate his main argument that Indian society was determined in large part due to the caste system.  The caste system dictated many aspects of the Indians’ life, such as with whom people associated themselves, the social and political hierarchy, and the organization of power.  It can be easily understood from McNeil’s points concerning the idea of caste that caste played a major role in determining the departure of Indian society from its original similarity to Greek society.

5. Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?

·       The caste system itself did not cause strong political organization to form because a caste ordinarily lacked both definite internal administration and territorial boundaries.  Forms of leadership were not discussed within the caste system, even though it can safely be assumed that the Brahmins, the dominant caste, held a majority of the leadership positions in Indian society.  Because of this, no king or ruler could command the undivided loyalty of people who felt they to belong to a caste rather to a state.  People viewed their loyalty towards their castes before their loyalty to their government or state. 

6. What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?

·       Indian religion shifted from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself because of the Aryan preoccupation with correctness of detail.  As the Vedas, handbooks of religious rituals, was passed down orally, people began to become blurred in actually understanding what the texts meant.  This lead to them feeling that every misplaced line or mispronounced world could nullify  an entire sacrifice and provoke divine displeasure.  This shifted the emphasis from the gods of the Aryan pantheon to the act of worship and invocation itself.  

7. How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian society?

·       The Upanishads changed the nature of Indian religion and this the goals of Indian society in that they conceived the end of life in a dramatically different way.  The overall goal of the Aryans became to escape the endless round of life and rebirth.  The Upanishads promoted not seeking riches, health, and long life, but rather living a good, sinless life, so one could possible escape the eternal cycle of life and death.

8. How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”

·       McNeil defines “Territorial Sovereignty” as the mentality of the early Greeks towards expansion of their territory.  The early Greeks centered the city-state, or polis, so that they expanded their military empires.  McNeil writes, “tamers of horses…overran priest-led agricultural societies,” showing that Greek society was transformed from an agricultural society into a militarized one.  This mental frame of “Territorial Sovereignty” marked the point at which Green and Indian societies departed from one another.

9. Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?

·       Greeks turned away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society because

·       Religion, as well as art, literature, philosophy, and other cultural factors, took the attention of the citizens away from their central goal of expanding their empire.  These cultural factors “engulfed the object of the citizens’ affections,” thus showing that if it had been a part of the organization of society, not enough emphasis would have been placed on the military aspect of life.

·       It distracted them from their main goal of expanding their empire. 

10. What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?

·       The consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis was that people no longer strived for purification, salvation, and for holiness, since a majority of their time was devoted to military expansion instead of cultural expansion.  Though religion was not nearly as prominent in early Greece as it was in early India, there were certain periods of time during which religion flourished.  Another negative aspect about this rigid structure of Greek society was that the intensity of the political tie excluded ranges of activity and sensitivity that were not compatible with the territorial organization of human grouping.  This “sowed seeds of civil strife.”

11. Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?

·       I buy his argument, primarily because of the strength of his arguments, using the Upanishads, Vedas, and the example of the Greek Polis as credible examples.  His argument follows a logical succession and makes sense.  I can see exactly why McNeil believed that Indian and Greek societies differentiated due to their political systems as well as castes and social hierarchies.