Hey folks! Alexander is a preeminent figure in Western history, and it’s interesting to discuss how that happens. What made Alexander so compelling even as a youth? What was in Alexander’s mind? What kind of world do you think this shaper of history saw himself creating?

After reading The Death of Alexander and analyzing Plutarch's account, it made me think differently about Alexander. We viewed Alexander as an unstoppable conqueror but with Plutarch's account, we see a man who becomes increasingly anxious and unsure of himself. The omens he encountered such as ravens falling from the sky or the strange man sitting on his throne showed how vulnerable he was feeling in his final days. To me, the reading highlights how even someone as powerful such as Alexander could not escape fear, uncertainty, or fate. This reminds us that behind the legend of Alexander, he was still a human being facing the end of his life.

Alexander’s death is approached like a moral lesson by Plutarch. He focuses heavily on the signs and superstitions surrounding it, almost as if he wants us as readers to understand the consequences of ignoring or obsessing over divine warnings. He includes different explanations, from sickness to possible poisoning, but he avoids choosing a single interpretation. Instead, Plutarch uses the competing stories to show the tension and political chaos surrounding Alexander. It feels like he respects Alexander’s greatness but also wants us to recognize the instability and anxiety that accompanied such enormous power.

This passage by Plutarch I feel connects to some of our discussions about how Greek leadership, its cultural values, and how ancient historians molded the reputations of these important figures. Plutarch is not simply recording events, he is crafting a narrative that influences how Alexander is remembered. His perspective fits with what we have discussed in regards to the Greek ideals of heroism, ambition, and hubris. 

Plutarch uses Alexander’s death to explore the emotional weight of leadership. The closer Alexander gets to the end, the more isolated he becomes. Surrounded by advisors, omens, and suspicions, but lacking anyone he truly trusts. It made me think about how success can sometimes create the illusion of control, even when everything is quietly falling apart. Alexander conquered most of the known world, yet in Plutarch's tellings, he could not conquer his own fears. That contrast made the reading feel surprisingly modern. Almost like a reminder that power doesn't protect anyone from anxiety, uncertainty, or morality.

“The Death of Alexander” by Plutarch discusses the events leading up to the death of Alexander the Great. Alexander had been warned not to go to Babylon because he would die, however he carried on and from the moment he arrived, it was repeated that Alexander had been experiencing odd omens of death. Upon his arrival, he was met by a flock of ravens, some of which fell dead at his feet. Another omen that Alexander encountered was a mighty lion being killed by a donkey and a prisoner sitting on his throne in his royal robe. Alexander became suspicious and fearful because of this due to the fact that his heir had not yet been born . Eventually Alexander becomes sick with a terrible fever and his demise is documented through a series of day by day journaling of his final days. Through these days, the people did not know whether he was alive or dead, raising concern. After Alexander's actual death, the reality of who will take his place comes into play when his wife Roxana was still pregnant and the issue of whether or not he was poisoned comes into question . Roxana had Alexander's other wife murdered in order to secure power for their unborn child. This reading shows not only how the Macedonians believed very heavily in omens and oracles but also the importance of passing down power and legacy through a rightful heir.

I had chosen the second reading which is Plutarch on Alexander, and I chose this reading for multiple reasons. One of which is that I presented on it and I am pretty comfortable with Alexanders history, another reason I chose this is that I am very interested in Alexander the great as I personally feel drawn to historical battles, wars, the politics regarding them and as Alexander is one of the greatest historical tacticians of his time I feel very drawn to learning about him. A detail that stuck out to me about Plutarchs telling of Alexander the great was the story about his horse and how he went against his parents and elders challenging their say. This comes from his father being gifted an unridable horse causing his father Philip the second to be angry and declaring to get rid of it. However in the story Alexander recognizes how the horse has much energy and skill and is merely afraid of his shadow. I find this interesting as Alexander truly did not want to have a violent warrior like image as a leader he wanted to be well liked and be seen more as a deity and diplomatic ruler. I believe Plutarchs telling of the horse story as well as many others show this as he did not lead with force rather reason. More so I believe that Plutarch writes about Alexander in a way that makes him sound like he is telling a myth about a god. I believe that this document supports what we know about Alexander even to the point of capturing a little of Alexander and Phillips relationship. I would like to know more about his specific tactics and the difference between past rulers.

The speech on Alexander the Great was a powerful example of leadership.

His major achievements were to conquer the Persian empire and spreading Greek

culture. I don't feel he's so great because he was migrating from city to city taking

over and rewarding his soldiers. He had the largest empire an became a successful

military commander. I feel like the author is aware of all the consequences of his

actions and think of him as great. He was in it to win it with or without soldiers.

The last passage caught my attention was "the utmost hopes of riches or power

which each one of you cherishes will be far surpassed, and whoever wishes to

return home will be allowed to go, either with me or without me. I will make those

who stay the envy of those who return. This texted meant that the soldiers that lefted

missed out on all the rewards given and earned.

For this weeks response I chose “The Ideal State” by Aristotle because of its insight into Western political thought and unique perspective on how people and the state interact. Aristotle believes that the state is a natural and unavoidable part of life because we’re rational beings who think about justice and what’s best. Since we can’t become virtuous just by ourselves, legislators must guide citizens through education, habits, and rational thinking. Aristotle also asserts that the state comes before the individual and family, suggesting that citizens are essential to the political community and must be shaped in ways that uphold the moral and political order.

This document gives us a peek into classical Greek society, showing us a culture that saw the polis as the heart of everything and thought that private things like marriage, raising kids, and teaching morals were all political issues. It also shows how things were structured back then, with a strong hierarchy and patriarchal system, including things like leaving babies out and keeping women in tight control. Finally, it illustrates the interconnectedness of ethics, biology, and politics during that era. Ensuring the well-being and virtue of citizens was perceived as a public responsibility essential for the state’s survival and prosperity.

This passage from Plutarch about Alexander the Great caught my attention, especially the story of bucephalus. What surprised me most was how young Alexander noticed something others didn’t: the horse wasnt wild, it was just scared of its own shadow. Instead of forcing the horse, Alexander turned it toward the sun, solving the real problem. Plutarch seems to show that Alexander’s greatness came not only from bravery, but also from intelligence and sensitivity, even as a boy. When Philip tells him, with tears in his eyes, that “Macedonia is too small for you,” it feels like a prediction of everything Alexander would later achieve.

Tthe text also shows how the greeks admired arete, the idea of excellence that mixes strength, intelligence, and virtue. Philip hired Aristotle to teach Alexander, and Alexander valued him almost like a father. This shows how important knowledge and philosophy were, even for a future warrior king. The message on the war spoils: won by Alexander and the greeks (except the lacedaemonians), shows that Alexander already wanted to appear as the leader of all greeks, while also making it clear that Sparta didn’t join. This reflects the rivalries between greek city states and the complicated relationship between macedonia and the rest of greece. It also makes me wonder why the Spartans were excluded and whether this greek unity was real or mostly propaganda.

For this week's response, I have chosen to read the primary document about Alexander by Plutarch. I was intrigued to learn about Alexander and what kind of king he was after his father, Philip. Everyone loved Phillip so much, and he had left a great legacy for himself. I had wondered if Alexander had a hard time living up to his father's standards, as the public was, and what Alexander did to make a name for himself, without being Philip's son. What stood out to me the most from the document was how Alexander was able to train the horse nobody wanted. Alexander was able to prove everyone wrong. Everyone was impressed, including his father. I don't know what it takes to train a horse, but I can imagine Alexander training that horse for days, weeks at a time. It possibly wasn't easy, but Alexander saw potential in the horse no one else saw. I think the author wanted the reader to understand Alexander's impact during his rule and to praise Alexander. Not comparing him to his father Philip, but rather how Alexander left his own name, Alexander was just as great as Philip was.

I think that during this time of this document, it was a time of political rise. Philip left Macedon in a good place, and Alexander maintained the same glory that his father had for Macedon. Alexander kept the golden age in Macedon as long as he could. It was after all the wars had ended, everyone wanted to continue to have a place with each other. This document is a lot like what I read last week about Philip. Macedon was able to have two great kings, Philip and Alexander. Both the author is giving praise of their ruler, and how they have brought peace and a name to Macedon. I would like to find out more about how Alexander's rule impacted other countries, nations. I also would like to know more about the other rulers after Alexander; it's hard to keep a standard when you have great kings everyone loved and adored. How long can peace be kept? That is what I would like to learn more about.

For this week’s readings, I chose Plutarch’s On Alexander. I picked it because I’ve always been curious about how someone so young became such a massive historical figure, and Plutarch really focuses on Alexander’s character rather than just listing events. One detail that stood out to me was the story about how Alexander reacted to the news that Philip had conquered more land—Plutarch says Alexander felt almost “restless” that his father would leave him nothing great to achieve. That little moment says so much about his ambition.

I think Plutarch is trying to communicate that Alexander’s greatness wasn’t just military skill—it was his mindset. He wants readers to see Alexander as someone with a kind of heroic destiny, shaped by intelligence, drive, and a need to prove himself. This tells us a lot about the time period too: people valued heroic narratives, and leaders were expected to appear larger than life.

Compared to the other readings, Plutarch’s version supports the idea that Alexander saw himself creating a world empire built on unity and glory, but it also contradicts the more restrained tone in Arrian’s “Speech of Alexander,” where Alexander sounds more rational and political. Altogether, these texts show us how ancient writers shaped Alexander into a legend and why he became so compelling even as a youth—he imagined a world much bigger than Macedon, and he truly believed he could shape it.

The reading that I choose was the Death of Alexander, as I wanted to see how Plutarch spoke about Alexander’s death. The detail that stood out to me the most is the account of Cassander and the image of Alexander. Cassander, years after Alexanders death, was so terrified by the sight of an image of Alexander at Delphi that he began to shudder and tremble. Plutarch mat be communicating the humanizing, and tragic, nature of Alexander’s death by including accounts of poisoning and the “bowl of Heracles” only to dismiss them as invented, “tragic fashion” finales. This document is about the events that happened in 323 BCE like the political instability after a centralized power. 

The section I chose for this weeks response is The Death of Alexander by Plutarch. This writing in short is a detail description of the events and the atmosphere at the time around Alexanders death. With several foreshadowing events and omens Alexander was shaken fore the writing does a detailed day to day telling of the sickness Alexander went through before his death. In his last days we get to see a version of Alexander who is doing daily sacrifices as well has suffering from a fever that is so bad it would even leave him too weak to leave the bath house at the end of some nights. Over all this section is detailing the death of Alexander but this section also echo's the idea that Alexanders death was due to some act by Aristotle while this is seen as a rumor even in its own time, overall the writer wanted to give us a peak into the world at the time of Alexanders death

I chose Plutarch’s account of Alexander’s death because it shows a side of him we rarely see, not the confident conqueror but a man overwhelmed by omens and uncertainty. The moment that stood out most to me was when a stranger was found sitting quietly on Alexander’s throne wearing the royal clothes. It feels symbolic, almost as if the world around him was already preparing for his absence. Plutarch seems to be emphasizing how superstition began to influence Alexander’s choices and how a leader who once felt unstoppable became unsure of everything around him.

This document also reveals how strongly people in this period believed in signs from the gods and how those beliefs shaped their political thinking. Unlike some of the other readings, Plutarch focuses more on the emotional unraveling behind the historical events rather than just the achievements. It also reflects the idea that ancient historians liked to turn history into a moral lesson, in this case about the danger of letting fear guide leadership. I am left wondering how much of this account is factual and how much Plutarch shaped in order to create a dramatic story about power, fate, and the final days of a legendary ruler.

For this week’s discussion, I chose the reading from Arrian on the Speech of Alexander the Great. I did so because of my own experience giving speeches—and helping others write them—with the goal of informing and motivating the intended audience. Likewise, I wanted to understand the impact of this particular speech by Alexander and how it helped define him both as a leader and as an individual.

This passage captured my attention because of the interaction and relationship it portrayed between Alexander and his army. Alexander made it clear that he cared about the well-being of his soldiers, but he depended even more on their loyalty. His honesty and openness, combined with his direct approach to social, economic, and political matters(although he was not as focused on governing his empire), gave his men the chance to demonstrate their solidarity with one another, with their leader, and with their Macedonian ideals. Alexander unquestionably knew how to rally his troops and inspire them to support his goals. His confident promises of victory and the prospect of wealth and glory reveal much about his approach to leadership as both a commander and a ruler, embellishing his conquest to become the greatest army in the known world.  

Overall, Alexander’s determination—and his pursuit of honor, power, and freedom—extended Macedonian influence farther than any Greek leader before him, surpassing even his father Philip II. He stressed that hardships are inevitable, but that success comes only through unity and loyalty, paired with a steadfast focus on the rewards earned through perseverance and hard work.  

Consequently, Alexander’s legacy and the impact he left upon the modern world, identified him as perhaps one of the greatest and youngest leaders of his time, ‘linking together’ Eurasia from the Mediterranean to India. I have yet to wonder, “Although he was known to be a military genius and charismatic leader, why did Alexander not care to focus on governing his vast empire?”  

One thing I can say about Alexander is it was seemed that he was already one of the choosen ones from Young. It can also seem as if the story of alexander the great can be unrealistic as well because he led with such intention that people followed by the command of his words alone .... let alone his activity amongst war experiences which gave him the aura of a god. Alexander was always fearless and strong willed from young. He was military minded and war driven i believe he was larger then life but my question is why was his death so suspicious