"Alexander the Great"

Paper Summary:

This paper reviews the book and asks whether Alexander the Great was a genius or a madman, a brilliant conqueror or a murderous tyrant. It questions whether he deserves his exalted historical reputation, or, as Dante suggested in his "Inferno", should be consigned to the seventh circle of hell, a place reserved for mass murderers and war makers destined to spend eternity submerged in hot blood.

From the Paper:

"Alexander, son of King Phillip II, must have certainly been "great" to at least some, or the superlative would not have been added to his name. However, historian Robin Lane Fox paints a much more human picture of Alexander, who could be considered anything from God-like to a madman, depending on the circumstances, and the historian. Alexander is known as one of the greatest military conquerors and strategists of all time, and yet he was human like everyone else. He was at the least a bisexual, but that was much more accepted at the time " in fact, young men were routinely taught about love with other men, as Lane Fox notes. " [B]ut between two young men or a young and an older man affairs were not unusual; homosexuality, so Xenophon had recently written, was also a part of education, whereby a young man learnt from an older lover" (Lane Fox 56)."

More papers on "Alexander the Great":

• Book Review # 96825 : "Alexander the Great"
• Essay # 33322 : "Alexander The Great"
• Term Paper # 114781 : "Alexander the Great"
• Term Paper # 120882 : "Alexander the Great"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: