Alexander the Greatest, from British television in the '70s.
For most of written history “the Great” was mainly used for those rulers who fought their nation’s/culture’s traditional rivals or enemies, achieved some significant victories and significantly expanded their nation’s or culture’s influence and territory. The means were usually much less important than the results.
As others have said, the semantics of human greatness have drastically changed in the centuries since 323 BCE. But without Alexander’s conquests there would have been no Hellenism and so probably no Western culture as we know it.
Can I pit your history teacher for wasting time on such an idiotic anachronistic debate instead of teaching about the Hellenistic period, a sadly neglected part of history?
I shudder to think what’s going to happen when he gets around to googling my username.
Ha… Oh AU… I’ve missed you. Reading this has been most excellent. Pit Thread the Great.
I do have to warn you, if your OP is going to be the basis of your debate, you might want to reorganize it more logically.
-
You’re pitting someone who’s been dead for well over 2000 years, and whom nobody gives much of a shit about, today. Hell, hardly anyone thinks about him on a day-to-day basis, except for historians who’s sub-field is Alexandrian times. I’d call that the epitome of stupid.
-
Unfortunately, none. But we can hope (and pray to “Mod”) that you will, can’t we?
I bet Alexander the Great could have gotten into MIT.
I won’t condemn him until I know what kind of hat he wore.
My history teacher is awesome. He has a reason for doing his. You see, our class is not good at writing essays and debating. So he is having us learn about Alexander because this is a really good topic for that. Now this is actually in our curriculum. And we are reading an article; the other thing he is teaching us is that any fact can be argued one way or another. Facts don’t speak for themselves. The articles on Alexander are also really good for teaching us how to create well-developed arguments from facts. History class is not only about history. It is also about becoming a better persuasive writer at least in our curriculum.
Really? :smack:
Sorta in a “we can debate/spin crazy bullshit anyway we wanna kinda way”.
Don’t take this idea too much to heart or you’ll end up being one of those people who everyone else thinks is crazy but in their own heart thinks they are right.
Oh don’t even get me started with that. I feel very strongly that his persecution was unjust. Expect a pit thread on this in the near future and argue with me there…
:dubious: Are we doing your homework for you?
Y’know, if that post had been submitted by anyone else, I’d be assuming it was a joke…
You know, actually maybe not in the pit section but in the great debates one because technically this is (or was) a largely debated topic: Socrates.
Nah. He just would have torched it and then personally killed all of the 1000 faculty and 10,900 students. Then he would have gotten bored and ordered his staff to take out the 105,162 people of Cambridge while he took a nap.
I’m picturing the possible titles.
“Socrates: did he have a big hat?”
“Socrates: he should’ve paid for the rooster himself, the chiseler”
“Socrates: martyr to intellectual freedom or big dumdum?”
“Socrates: not really made of crates”
I’ve lived in Cambridge. I bet the regular bums in Central Square could go head to head with Alexander.
“Rooster”? You do not appear to appreciate what sort of god Asklepios was, or what “white cock” means in context . . .
That must have been some hat!
I want to pit Napoleon because of that arrogant hat he wore. I mean the guy was only like 5’2’’ or something, and he wore that big tall hat to try and make himself look taller. Also he was kinda fat. What a loser. He also basically just looks like a dweeb and could really use a tan. And this is the guy who walked around calling himself Napoleon I, Emperor of the French. Puh-lease! More like Emperor of the Nerds.