Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?

     Actions that have been completed in the past and thought at the time to be acceptable might not be thought as such in modern times. The way something is perceived at one time can greatly differ from the way that the same thing is looked at in the modern perspective. Perception can change for the better or the worse. Time and distance play a major role in whether something is viewed positively or negatively. Time can, as shown repeatedly in the past, impact the modern popular perception of an item, empire, action or even a single individual. There are specific examples of this that apply to everyday life as well as more broad examples that have changed history.

Smoking advertisement in the
early 1900's

A 'Closed' sign for the violation
of the Prohibition act in the 20's

     As time goes on, one thing can go from completely normal and socially acceptable to something not seen as such. There are many examples of this that are relevant in everyday life. One example of this that we see in everyday life is smoking. in the 1930's and 40's, the risks of smoking were unheard of, and the majority of people smoked. Even most physicians smoked. In advertising, companies tried to assure consumers that their brand of cigarette was without risk. Now, not only are the dangers of smoking well-known to the general public, and most people avoid smoking altogether, companies are socially and legally forbidden to advertise falsely. Another example of how perspective has changed over time towards an item is alcohol. From 1919 to 1933, it was even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to outlaw alcohol. Now, although there are recognized risks to the use of alcohol, it is legal and anyone the age of 21 and over can drink it. As well as some everyday examples, there are a lot of examples that have had a major impact on our country alone.


   

A picture of the Nuclear bomb
used in WWII

     The perspective of some things that have changed over time have affected the course of world history. One example of this is slavery. In the past, slavery was viewed in society as acceptable. Although there were always some who were against it, in the eyes of the general public at the time, slavery was ok. The people who could afford them, had them, and the people who couldn't afford them, had no problems with the others having them. Now, after the U.S. civil war, slavery is looked at with disgust. People disdain the thought of having slavery in their country's past. And people also dislike the concept that some countries still have slavery today. Another prominent example of something that is viewed much differently today are weapons of mass destruction. In WWII, nuclear weapons were used against the Japanese to end the war. At the time, the U.S. thought that the bomb was necessary and acceptable to use in the war. There is still much discussion today on whether or not the bomb was necessary. There is even an international agreement not to use nuclear, chemical, or any other types of weapons of mass destruction.

     Over time, there have been many examples of how the perspective of things have changed. These examples are just like how the perception of Alexander the Great may have changed. Since his time, the stories of him have been looked at through many different points of view. Some of these perspectives have highlighted his greatness, and some of them have focused on his not-so-great attributes. Over all, there is evidence that Alexander was great in some ways, and not in others. And the way people view these different aspects are subject to change over time and distance.

Sources

Gardner, Martha N., PhD, and Allan M. Brandt, PhD. "“The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”." NCBI. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, Feb. 2006. Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/>.

"Prohibition in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States>.

"Slavery in the Colonies." Slavery in the Colonies. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://tdl.org/txlor-dspace/bitstream/handle/2249.3/663/05_slavery_colonies.htm>.

"Geneva Conventions." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 09 Aug. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions>.
 

   

Does Alexander deserve to be called “Great”?

     Did "Alexander the Great" deserved to be called "great"?The society that lived in Philip II/ Alexander period thought that he deserved to be called "Alexander the Great". I believe that he did deserve to be called "Great" ,because he was a young military genius. He conquered many cities with power and courage. "Alexander the Great" shows how he deserved to be called "great" from conquering land and inventing new weapons to overcome his enemies.

     Even though he was young, age 20 when he became king, he accomplished many things like conquering Persia,one of the strongest cities in his time. He invented new weapons that he could have an advantage over his enemies.His first conquer was the Greek Empire and this is when everyone started to call him "great". He conquered Persia twice that is why he was called the "Great Persian Empire"."Alexander the Great" had many inventions like the siege tower which helped him and his army destroy the walls of Tyre and pass over.He invented the He also invented the Torsion catapult which would break the walls of a city. "Alexander the Great", used the Torsion catapult to break down the walls of Tyre and defeat them.The inventions would help him overcome his enemies that is why he is "great".

     Even though Alexander was great,he had a father, Philip II, that was king and had accomplished many things like the beginning of conquering the Greek Empire. People say that Alexander's "Greatness" really was just his fathers. Philip II was also great because he conquered many lands.Mahatma Gandhi was "great" just like Alexander.He believed in nonviolent and peaceful protests.Mahatma Gandhi was like "Alexander the Great" because he lead India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. 
     
     "Alexander the Great" deserved to be called great because he did many things like inventing new inventions and taking over cities and lands during his time.He was the best leader during his time and he inspired many people.He has influenced many leaders to be as "great" as him.

Sources

Ghoshal, Bobby. N.p.. Web. 25 Sep 2013. <http://bobbyonboard.com/what-made-alexander-the-great-so-great-anyway>.

Eugene , B.. N.p.. Web. 25 Sep 2013. <http://www.history.com/topics/alexander-the-great>.

Vinay, L., and L. Vinay. N.p.. Web. 25 Sep 2013. <http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/gandhi.html>.

The Ups and Downs of Popular Perception

Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?

Time and distance impact someone’s popular perception, especially Alexander’s. Popular perception can affect the way people think about someone. In Alexander’s case, It affected him in a positive way, but it affected his father, King Phillip, in a negative way.

     People from across the lands knew about him. His stories were told over and over again, every time becoming more vivid. Athletes today remind me of Alexander the Great, specifically Johnny Manziel. Johnny started earning great achievements at a young age. Like Alexander, he took on a huge challenge. He faced the number 1 ranked team in college football, Alabama, and came out victorious. Everyone was talking about him, telling their friends. They made him seem like a god. Later he was awarded with the Heisman trophy. From then on, every team was afraid to play the great Johnny Manziel. But time and distance does not always have a positive effect on a person.

Alexanders father, King Phillip II, had many rumors about him. He was a great ruler, but there were rumors that he was cheating on the queen. The word spread around and everyone talked about it. Soon after, Phillip was killed by his own body guard. This reminds me of todays government, specifically Anthony Weiner. Anthony also had allegations going around that Anthony put inappropriate pictures on the internet. The news was all over it, telling everyone that owned a television. People were talking, Anthony had to apologize, and no one voted for him. To this day, there are still rumors going around about what Anthony did or didn't do and they are slowly getting worse over time.

Overall, popular perception drastically affected peoples opinions about Alexander and Phillip. However, it applies today too. Whether we like it or not there is gossip, rumors and exaggerations. Maybe we should pay less attention.

Citations:

. N.p.. Web. 25 Sep 2013.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Lendering, J.. N.p.. Web. 25 Sep 2013. 

     <http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t72.html>.

. N.p.. Web. 25 Sep 2013.     <http://theworldofalexanderthegreat.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/happy-birthday-alexander-the-great-2021-july-356-bc/>.

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

   

 THE VALUES OF A SOCIETY BASED ON THEIR VIEWS OF GREATNESS

   A person who is classified as great, or was in a certain time period, most likely had traits or skills that were admired by people at the time. They would also most likely have to use these traits do something for the good of others. However when a person is considered great to a certain group of individuals, that doesn't mean he was considered as such in his time, or will always be in the future.

Bust of Alexander the Great

       Before we answer this question, we must first attempt to answer the question of whether Alexander was actually great. Alexander did great things. He achieved his father's dream of taking over Persia and was a good leader. He kept all the citizens in his territory in line by being ruthless to traitors but fair to those who exhibited potential. He created a beautiful merge between the different cultures of his empire These were traits that were greatly admired, and made Alexander famous, though it was that he used them to do such amazing things which is what made him a valued figure in the community. Philip II did much for Macedonia being the ambitious man that he was, and his son Alexander carried this trait to. He was striving for the things his father had been striving for, he inspired his people and fought bravely. Basically, he held a similar set of traits to his father, who was the best leader Macedonia had seen in ages, and he did things the way his father had and would have done them, and since everyone had loved Philip it would make sense that they would love his son as well.

Adolf Hitler

       However, we cannot attribute Phillip II for all Alexander's greatness. He was quite similar to another leader, who was greatly admired for a number of  reasons, even if we refuse to admit it. Adolf Hitler was charismatic and intelligent, after Germany had been defeated in World War I they felt a lack of pride in their country and were blamed for the brutality of the war, causing them to have massive war debt. In came Hitler who spoke to them in an assuring manner and said he could fix their problems. This is the same as Alexander's situation because after his father had died, had Alexander not stepped in, many people may have feared they would go back to the way things were before Phillip's rule. Hitler protected the people of Germany so in turn the people protected him from being seen in a bad light. In Macedonia people probably feared Alexander because he was known for being ruthless with traitors, so they didn't exactly want to get on his bad side.
       In conclusion, one can tell the values of a society by the traits of the people they classify as great, independent of what time period the person came from. As much as a person is great, he may not be considered so until later, he may not always be considered it, or he may never get the recognition he deserves. I'm sure there are many people who have the ability to be great, but aren't given the opportunity to try or never get the recognition they deserve.



Borza, Eugene. "Alexander the Great." History.. History., n.d. Web. 20 Sep 2013      
     <http://www.history.com/topics/alexander-the-great>.

Fascist Personality Cults. Diss. University of Michigan, Web.   
     <http://sitemaker.umich.edu/fascistpersonalitycult/adolf_hitler>.

"Alexander the Great." Engineering an Empire. History: 27 Mar 2007. Radio.   
     <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELQNHNgdKs&safe=active>.

Question 3: Do time and distance impact someone’s popular perception?

Question 3: Does time and distance have a impact on people's popular perception?

Do historical figures get a reputation they don’t deserve? Many historical figures were not who historians said they were, like Ivan the Terrible, and Napoleon. Both of these men had leadership positions like Alexander, and Napoleon fought other countries to gain land.

Ivan the Terrible got his "terrible" reputation because Ivan’s name was missed translated from from Russian to English. It was translated from Russian to English incorrectly. In Russian it was Ivan the “formidable”, which is more like having respect because of size, strength or ability. But in English, his name in Ivan the terrible. This means that he was respected because of his stature and strength. Also, although many Americans would say otherwise, Napoleon was not short, he was actually 5 ft 5 in tall, which in his time is extremely tall. The error occurred when they were converting from French units to English units. At the time, a French foot was larger than an English foot so people heard 5' 2" and it stuck.

Napoleon was tall for his time. This is how he compares to leaders of  today. 
Imagine him without the hat. 

So, what if Alexander the Great was not actually great? What if his legacy got lost in time, like Ivan's, or was altered as it passed from one person to another. How much would this change how we also looked on famous or infamous people of history? If Alexander's legacy was altered, would we still call him great, or would we frown upon him?

Sources:  

Strickland, Joseph. n. page.  
<http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations/2012/09_Strickland_History.pdf>. "FAQ." Foundation Napoleon. (2008): n. page. Web. 20 Sep. 2013. 
<http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/>

BBC News, . How World Leaders Measure Up. 2009. Infographic. Sarkozy height row grips FranceWeb. 25 Sep 2013. 
     <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8243486.stm>.

Question 2 : James Webster

Well, Alexander the Great was called “great” by the Romans. This means the Romans believed in similar principles as Alexander did. The Romans used similar military tactics as Alexander did like the long poles and the shields "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; the last, the least, the littlest." This is a quote by Cardinal Roger Mahony in 1998. Civilizations can take and learn all the things that a person of greatness can provide. Civilizations and empires after Alexander the great have used his greatness for ideas in their own civilizations. The romans used things that Alexander the Great came up with. The romans called alexander great because of what he accomplished. Society related upon greatness has many things to do with life today. The way a society looks at greatness within people is determined on what the person did.

Sources:

Mills, Billy. N.p.. Web. 20 Sep 2013. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/greatness.html>.

Trueman, C.. N.p.. Web. 20 Sep 2013. <http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/roman_army.htm>.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/roman_army_and_warfare.htm

Claudia , F.. N.p.. Web. 20 Sep 2013.

<http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/afterlife.html>.

Does Alexander Deserve to be called "Great"?

Alexander the Great

Do all leaders deserve to be called great? In some ways leaders do deserve to be called great, but others don't. In the dictionary, great is defined as being such in an extreme or notable degree. One leader stands out for this word. Alexander the Great deserves his title because he  conquered more and more land, and the spread of Hellenistic culture in many countries.

Alexander the Great had been crowned king of Macedon at twenty after his father, Philip II, had been murdered by his old guardsmen.(Beck 143) Alexander had conquered a great deal land, when he had arrived at Egypt they had named Alexander a pharaoh and a liberator. He also founded the city of Alexandria located in Egypt which still stands. Similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had a vision to get the country out of the depression. Alexander was able to inspire and encourage his men, but also accomplished the impossible task of conquering Persia. Genghis Kahn was emperor of the Mongol Empire, just like Alexander he had conquered numerous different lands, and he also was called Great Kahn. The major effect on the “Great” part of Alexander’s name was given by the Romans. Alexander was liked by the Romans; his success set an example to all the Romans. The Romans saw him conquering all the land and defeating the powerful Persian army that was a sign of greatness for him. Therefore, he got the name, Alexander the Great, which he deserves for all his many accomplishments he has made.

The spreading of Hellenistic and Greek culture was another example of Alexander’s greatness. The form of culture was based off of the Hellenism, which some people still argue today that this was Alexander’s legacy. The center of the Hellenistic culture was in Alexandria, Egypt. Trade and culture was based off of the city Alexandria. Hellenistic states were ruled by kings, complete opposite of the Greek city-states by them being governed by their people.  This Hellenistic culture mixed with the Egyptians, Persian, and Indian influence.(Beck 146) Hellenism was important to the daily life of Greeks.   

Alexander the Great deserves his title after all by all the major impacts he has made throughout Greece.He was a great ruler and very inspiring person. He has influenced many rulers, by the centuries, all around the world. The world has been impacted by all rulers effects. 

 Works Cited

 Alexander the Great. Wikipedia, 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Influence_on_Rome>.

Beck, Roger B. World History Patterns of Interaction. Orlando: Holt McDougal, n.d. Print. Vol. 1 of World History Patterns of Interaction. 1 vols.

"Great." Merriam Webster. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Merriam Webster Dictionary. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great>.

 Hellenistic Greece. History, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://www.history.com/topics/hellenistic-greece>.

 How was Alexander Great. Utexas, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>.

Does Alexander deserve to be called "Great"?
     Many people think that Alexander should be called "great" and many people think that he should not. I believe that Alexander should be called "Alexander the Great." He conquered a great deal of land from about Greece all the way to about India. He was also a great military commander. He had a strong military and took over things with this advantage. Alexander learned after his father who taught him a great deal of responsibility including education, military importance, and watched his father take over many different parts of the land. As you can see Alexander did many great things in his lifetime.

     His military intelligence was amazingly good. He started learning at an early age from his father who was transforming Macedonia into a great military power at the time. Alexander always watched his father victory after victory winning every time. His father taught him well about the military. When Alexander was only sixteen years old his father, Phillip, left him with control over Macedonia. There was a danger to the country and Alexander had to do something about it. He assembled his army. He led them and defeated the rebels of Maedi. In about 338 B.C. he destroyed a great and powerful Greek force. The name of this force was the Theban Secret Band. He soon got into a battle with the Thebans. Alexander puts some of his army behind them so they could not cut him off. Finally, Greece still remained under the control of Macedonia. The conquest of Egypt was also very important. He found that city could be designed and built at the mouth of the Nile River. It could be used as trading and Macedonian outpost. The first one was here but he also had many others as well. He named this city after him. It was called Alexandria.
   
      As you can see on the picture of the map he conquered from about Greece all the way to India. He deserves to be called great if he led his troops through all of this land and winning every bit of it. After his father passed. He had to take the military over at very young age of about eighteen years old. One of the first empires he captured was the Persian Empire. This was a great capture because it was one of the biggest empires ever. Alexanders very first attack was in Thessaly. He went for them because he was going to restore Macedonian rule there. Alexander defeated them all the way up to the Danube river. He then went to Thebes and only left temples and the house of Pinder. The house of Pinder was a well known poet in the 5th century. 

      He conquered a big deal of land at an early age. If he was only eighteen years old when he started attacking and taking over cities. You know that he is going to be "great." Alexander was very talented with his military and knew good strategies for his military to take over other places. He was the head of his military. He used calvary to attack sometimes. This was very hard to stop including the catapult. This is why Alexander deserves to be called "great."

Works Cited

"The Conquests of Alexander the Great." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.

"Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography." Alexander the Great (Alexander of Macedon) Biography. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.

What can one learn about the values of society based on their views of greatness?

One is able to learn a lot about a society based on what they view as great. there is proof from recent times and from ancient times on how we judge a society by what they think is great. Joseph Stalin was viewed as great by the russian people and Alexander III of Mastodon was thought to be great by the greek people.

During the Cold War Stalin was the leader of Russia, the Russian people thought his ideas and actions were great. Despite the famine and man slaughter of Russian people, Stalin remained leader of Russia until his death in 1953. This shows us how cruel the russian people were if they supported a man who killed more of his own people than Hitler killed jews ,and they kept this man as leader until he died.

Similarly, Alexander was the leader of Greece. Alexander had conquered a large sum of the known world in only 13 years, stretching from Egypt all the way to India. When he conquered this land he brought with him the lifestyles of ancient Greece. The Greek culture was mixed with all of the different cultures that were conquered by Alexander. To help show the unity of the cultures Alexander married a persian woman. When Alexander died in June of 323 B.C. all of the land that was overthrown by Alexander did not go back to their old cultures without greek influence. This shows how highly the people thought of Alexander 
and his culture.

Work Cited

Unteraker, J.. N.p.. Web. 20 Sep 2013.
<http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/death.htm>.

Walker, Shuan. N.p.. Web. 20 Sep 2013.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-why-is-stalin-still-popular-in-russia-despite-the-brutality-of-his-regime-827654.html>.

Roger B. Beck, .
<http://my.hrw.com/tabnav/controller.jsp?isbn=9780547521084>.

Values of a Society based on Their Beliefs of Greatness

           Without an audience, greatness has no significance. It does not even exist at that point because no one would know about it, and therein lies the depths of what this argument attempts to prove: the perception of greatness from different points of view, and how this perception reflects back upon the perceptees. The perception of what is great differs depending on what attributes are necessary at that time. Thus, different things can be inferred about a people’s values depending on what they consider great. Alexander III of Macedon was called “the Great” because of the success of his conquests and the glory which he brought to his people.

  The Romans were the first to christen him “the great”. This shows that the Romans were of the opinion that his conquests were the best thing that he accomplished. This is likely because the Romans were at the time plowing a similar course with their own empire, and were so trying to be optimistic about the outcome. The Romans recognized the difficulty of holding such a large empire and respected him for being able to do that. While it seems that one would be dismayed by the loss of tens of thousands of citizens, neither the Romans nor the Macedonians seem to have cared much about that. This would indicate that there was no shortage of people on either front. While the Romans were impressed mainly because of his military prowess, his own people also reveled in his acheivements with what land he had already conquered.

Macedonians worshipped Alexander. Many thought him a god before he died. Alexander spread the culture of Greece throughout his empire. He created a lasting legacy, the hellenistic kingdoms. Finally, he is considered to be philosophical idealist for the equal treatment of all races of people. However, he was very reckless with his life and the lives of his soldiers. His “violent temper on occasion led him to murder his friends and who towards the end of his life was an alcoholic, paranoid, megalomaniac, who believed in his own divinity” He killed innocent native peoples for no reason. What does this say about the values of his people? The Macedonians valued a leader who would preserve the worth of the empire, and glorify it. They cared little about the means through which it was done so long as the end goal was accomplished.

In conclusion, while Alexander III of Macedon had many flaws, his greatness in the eyes of both the Romans and his own people vastly overshadowed them. His greatness exemplified the militaristic values of his society, and also his capability to control an entire empire. Greatness is something that doesn’t occur without people to witness it.

Works Cited

“Military of Ancient Rome.” Wikipedia. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Wikipedia. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome>.

Worthington, Ian, Ph.D. “How ‘Great’ Was Alexander?” University of Texas. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013. <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/great1.html>.
"Of Gods and Men." Williams. Jed Untereker, James Kossuth, Bill Kelsey, n.d. 
     Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/>.