Alexander the greats action and intentions

Alexander the great was one of the most outstanding leaders and conquerors in the kingdom, where he conquered Europe to Asia and thus proclaimed the king of Asia. The concept of his achievement is based on his judgment and his undecided intentions that lead to his success. His leadership quality trait was the key to his achievement as an army commander. He faced dangers and hardship with his crew (In his struggles, he had the goal of creating an emperor where it’s cooperating with various cultures in the kingdom. In his conquests, he was driven by the love for the Greek culture, thus providing Greece with a common enemy, thus enabling him to conquer the great area as he controlled his army (Strechie, 422). One of his men went looking for water in the desert and finds some and later come back offering it to him; he pours the water on the ground. The discerning of his intention in the conquest was hard to determine as his decision and purpose in his action were not according to the people’s logic.

The death of Philip, Alexandrea’s father, was associated with the bodyguard who stabbed him in the back during a banquet. Even though his mother, Olympias, and her son were the keys to Philip's assassination in his father's death, he was still considered the heir. The assassination was followed by the attempts to assassinate the son of the wife that Philip had married to avoid the threat created by another successor in the kingdom. Despite the need for Alexandrea to strengthen the domain after his father’s death, the rebellion's brutal killing was mistaken for cleaning the kingdom to avoid a coupon for Alexandrea. Philip's death was not determined in terms of whether it was based on Alexandrea greed for power or the fear of the successor to bring the competition in the inheriting the kingdom.

The need to conquer Asia's whole was Alexander’s dream of creating a community that composts many cultures according to his philosophy. In his conquest, Alexander was driven by the greed to conquer most of Asia to be identified as a great king. In this context, the intention he had and the actions he demonstrated are two different things as they form other ideologies in his purpose in conquering. His attack on the Persians during the reign of Darius the great was attached to the revenge on the Persian attacks on the Greeks, but at the same time, he wanted to conquer the whole of Persia (Aneni, 79). The Persian invasion's main aim was not determined as people tried to wonder whether he aimed to teach king Darius a lesson or be defined and looked at as the god in Egypt and to his solder or meet the aim he had made on the attack.

Alexander the significant demonstrated actions were all based on the notion that he wanted to prove to the people that he was not his father. In doing so, he did all the things his father had done and wanted to do more in the attempt to prove he was better than his father despite the great inheritance he had from his father through the armies and a united Greece (Martin, 1) His father, Philip, planned the Persian attack. Still, to outdo his father’s achievement, he chose to unite the Greeks despite the community's nature that could not enable the unity. In doing so, he eliminated all the rebellion that was growing after his father’s death to start his conquest in Asia. The whole practice of brutally eliminating the rebel was based on the Asia conquest. Still, in reality, he wanted to stop all the rebellion in the kingdom to enable him to move to Asia. The choices he made were based on the nation's great good, but it was all for the individual gaols in his mission.

The dream of crossing from Europe to Asia was his father's dream from the start, but he died after being stabbed by the bodyguard at the back in his attempt to meet the goal. Alexander’s intention to make the trip to the west in Asia's conquest was done in Alexander’s attempt to prove he was better than his father. Still, he framed it as his conquest to build a kingdom made of a different culture. In comparing the son and the father, Philip was considered far more significant than Alexandrea in achieving the army development and Greece's unifying.   The need that Alexander had to be greater than his father was the driving force in his conquest, where he was to achieve all his father Philip had not succeeded in the attempt to overshadow him. The unifying of the Greece kingdom and the assassination of all the people who wanted to form a rebellion against his rule were indicators of the need to surpass his father’s achievement.

Despite Alexandrea’s success in conquering Europe and Asia, his most significant failure was to provide the empire with an heir bringing the end to the greatest empire. The insecurity that he demonstrated in killing any person who could succeed him was one of the biggest failures in the kingdom he created (D’Agostini, 19). The concept of eliminating a possible heir was unfounded as the heir could provide continuity to the empire despite the fear of elimination. This led to his premature death, where his arrogance was the leading cause of his death. His lack of consideration of the kingdom after his death raises the question of his view of himself as a god. The lack of a successor was the leading cause of the empire's division after his death. The people lacked an ordinary leader and the division of the great Macedonian empire.

 

Work cited.

Aneni, Monica Omoye. "Cultural diffusion and the unification policies of Alexander the Great." African Research Review 12.4 (2018): 77-86.

D’Agostini, Monica. "Alexander the Great and his Sisters: Blood in the Hellenistic Palace." Affective Relations and Personal Bonds in Hellenistic Antiquity: Studies in honor of Elizabeth D. Carney (2020): 19.

Martin, Aubrey Betteke. "The Dipsomania of Alexander the Great." (2020).

Strechie, Mădălina. "Alexander the Great and the “Clash” of Ancient Civilizations." International conference Knowledge-Based Organization. Vol. 24. No. 2. Sciendo, 2018.