Alexander the Great

Because he was Greek too. Also Aristoteles was a very famous philosopher, being taught by Plato, who had Socrates as his teacher.

Alexander explored because he wanted to expand his mighty empire and did it for glory, popularity, and blood lust

It spread Greek knowledge and preserved classical influences across three continents.

There are probably a lot more dissimilarities than similarities.

Alexander was a political ruler. Jesus stated and practiced 'my kingdom is not of this world.'

Alexander conquered much of the known world of his time by force of arms. Jesus is the prince of peace and no Christian can justify the use of force from the teachings of Christ since it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and convinces, not physical force.

Alexander's kingdom passed away soon after his death. Jesus kingdom was established through his death and glorious resurrection (Alexander also did not rise from the dead) and continues on until this day.

Alexander saved no-one from eternal damnation. Jesus has saved millions who have trusted in Him.

Alexander was noted for his self-indulgence and lack of self-control and drunkenness. Jesus exhibited none of these characteristics.

Alexander was ambitious for his own glory. Jesus, while on earth sought the glory of His heavenly Father and then returned to the eternal glory He had before.

Alexander had many thousands of men under him. Jesus had only twelve and even one of these betrayed Him.

Alexander received great honor in his time of military triumph. Jesus was crucified on a cross and despised and abandoned by His followers.

Alexander's goal was to glorify himself. Jesus' goal was to save others through His death.

Alexander performed no miracles. Jesus healed and raised the dead.

Alexander is dead. Jesus is alive forevermore.

Alexander created nothing (except a brief political empire). Jesus created the world in the beginning.

Alexander wept at the end of his conquests because there was nothing else to conquer. Jesus wept because of the death of His friend Lazarus and because of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. This shows a vast difference in personal motivation. The above is an absolutely terrible and one-sided answer. It is written from the point of view that Jesus is god, which is something Jesus never said. The reality is Alexander and Jesus are not that similar, but they happen to both be the two most influential figures in ancient Western history (along with Julius Caesar). Also, Alexander DID create something. He created a new era: the Hellenistic Age, which sought to combine Greek culture with eastern ideals. He also sponsored learning centers such as Alexandria in Egypt. Alexander was a god to people in successive eras. He was declared a god at the Oracle of Siwah in Egypt (just as Jesus was 'declared' God (which he wasn't) by the Holy Spirit in the Jordan River). He was never in a 'resurrection' story, but people did look for his second coming from Greece to India. He combined elements of Buddha, Krishna, Horus, Dionysos, and Herakles, all of which were religious figures who exhibited some similiarities to Jesus. The above poster needs to grow up and realize if you cannot offer a historical and objective answer, keep your beliefs to yourself.

His army, having been campaigning for ten years, wanted to go home to enjoy the spoils. Going on to the Ganges, thought to be the end of the world, was an ambition of Alexander, not the soldiers, so they mutinied and demanded to return home. It was just as well, as Chandragupta was driving north with irresistible force and would have exterminated Alexander and his Macedonians and allies.

On his early death Macedonia and the empire he had taken rom Persia was divided up to the Hellenistic Kingdoms - Egypt, Syria-Mesopotamia, Asia Minor (and Macedonia), which sowed a superficial Greek influence in North AFRica and Asia for a few hundred years until progressively replaced by other cultures especially Islam.

It was to motivate his men to fight superior numbers and win. He said, in response to the objection of one of his commanders who asked, "How are going to return home?" "We're going home in their ships."

Some would call Alexander the Great a great warrior. He never lost a battle. Some would call him a ruthless leader. He executed his cousin to make sure he had no rivals for his throne.
A mix of both, the proportion of each depending on your definition of both words.

his troops begged him to turn around from their war trail. it was too late before they got home and they died. i am a 6th grader and we just learned about this today. i think its interesting! and i hope this helped!

Alexander, the conqueror, himself was not a Greek philosopher, but he was one of the best and famous students of a great Greek philosopher, Plato. Alexander's father, King Philip of Macedonia, wanted his son to be tutored by a great teacher and selected Plato for this purpose. Even though Alexander's atrocities the world over cannot be attributed to this great teacher, he certainly did create a great city named Alexandria to celebrate his victories and made the library of this city one of the best in the world in that time, which certainly was a respect to his master.

Alexandria

because Alexander tried to mix the Greek cities and the Hellenistic cites didn't mix and there your answer to your question

alexander's whole name was alex miles jr.

No he killed Cleitus the black

Crimean War

Ä Disastrous defeats at Balaclava and Inkerman against major world powers.

Ä Fortress of Sebastopol had fallen to enemies, Russia's great naval base. Disrupted needed trade through Black Sea. Impediment to economic flourishing. Artery of most flourishing international trade.

Ä Shock and humiliation at revealed military and administrative inefficiency.

Ä Provoked peasant uprisings. Anticipated freedom to be granted.

Ä Technological gap between Russia and West exposed. Inadequate weaponry supply revealed lack of capital. 1 musket for every two soldiers. 4% of infantry owned a rifle. Arms outclassed by British and French.

Ä "Great power" status challenged. Successful empire before. Ineffectiveness of tsarist autocracy. In a region there was greatest hope of expansion. Romanov Dynasty had identified itself with military power. Model of west European nation-state.

Ä Army was to be modernised.

Ä Enlightened intellectuals questioned society's reliance on serf conscripts for army. Modernisation of army necessary - General Dimitrii Milyutin. New way of recruiting soldiers.

Ä Inadequate communication and transport systems. In wartime, supplies and troops could not be transported to front line due to lack of railway system. No railway south of Moscow. Conditions of recruits affected due to malnourishment. 2/3 of men died of starvation or sickness whilst being transported to front line. Could not maintain fighting in long campaign. Ineffective in relation to size of empire - many vulnerable points. Would expand economic potential.

Ä Willingness to prevent another defeat. Needed to improve in the case of a potential major European war. "Party of Progress," a group of liberal civil servants were in agreement.

Ä Economy was to be improved for military success as it entailed heavy expenditure and manufacture of instruments.

Ä Had damaged economy - generated inflation and state debt.

Alexander's own views

Ä Alexander II deemed it as his responsibility to restore Russia's power and prestige as a "great power."

Ä Limited reforms would render the economy more dynamic, satisfying Russians and proving the effectiveness of autocracy so as it would not be undermined.

Ä Taken control of government during father's absences abroad.

Ä Worked for over ten years in Council of State, serving on various committees. Saw problems first-hand.

Ä Visited Siberia, witnessed living conditions there.

Ä Realised serfdom was to be abolished if modernisation was to occur.

Ä Surrounded by "enlightened bureaucrats" who pressed for reform along western lines. Advisers dissatisfied with existing state of affairs.

Ä Wanted reform to come from "above."

Political considerations

Ä Nicolas I had maintained reactionary, authoritarian regime and could not prevent surfacing of new political and social thought, breeding disloyalty to government. Would only be crippled under threat. Becoming difficult to maintain high degree of vigilance.

Ä Peasant uprisings increased - protests against military conscription.

Ä Social stability threatened - 300 uprisings in upcoming years to Crimean War.

Ä Autocracy depended on nobles whom weren't being aided sufficiently. Falling incomes, dependent on serfs - no motivation for own work, business ventures.

Economic considerations

Ä Need to bridge industrial gap with the West - reassert great power status.

Ä Serfdom was a key impediment to industrialisation - prevented mobilisation to factories, limited capital accumulation, kept internal market demand low, hindered development of modern methods of agriculture, as there was little incentive for serfs to modernise methods due to profits being seized, farming remained inefficient, more productive in Siberia where there was paid work.

Ä Population had doubled - difficult to produce enough for peasants and surplus for landowners. Productivity levels remained the same - supply crisis for vast population.

Ä Bouts of famine as peasants had to hand over grain at harvest time.

Ä Landowning nobility fell into debt as they tried maintaining traditional lifestyles on reduced incomes.

Ä Grain less profitable due to competition of Western countries - more efficient production methods.

Ä Took mortgages on estates. By 1859, 66% of serfs had been mortgaged. Peasants unable to pay obrok and Poll Tax. By 1855, government had debt of 54 million roubles.

Moral and intellectual considerations

Ä Alexander Herzen and Ivan Turgenev, members of the intelligentsia, promoted modernisation of Russia in literature. Stressed immorality of serfdom - detrimental to moral fibre of upper classes.

Ä In 1862 Turgenev popularised the term "Nihilist" in Fathers and Sons. Addressed problems of contemporary Russian society.

Ä Turgenev's novel A Sportsman's Sketches published in 1852 helped influence educated Russian opinion in favour of the abolition of serfdom.

Ä Westerners believed upholding of tradition was deterring the nation's growth and modernisation in the wake of Western countries. "Civilise" society.

His story provides us with interesting history and legendary tales. Otherwise he has had negligible influence. The world has changed dramatically since his demise over 2000 years ago, the product of many influences from many people and peoples.

By kidney cancer

He was attempting to impose Greek culture in his empire as he thought it superior.

I believe he did the same as the Roman conquerors--the conquered people were assimilated into their society. Shortly, Persian people were marrying Greeks, etc. Alexander's armies left trusted politicians and army leaders, army units, and of course the families of the soldiers who trailed along with them to the place recently conquered. While I am sure many people were killed, maimed, and/or injured by the Persian armies, the surviving people tried to learn the Persian language and societal rules, if they wanted to get anywhere in Persian courts and high circles.

Greece

The Macedonian and Greek aristocracy maintained Greek culture, the rest of the populaces of the kingdoms, established by Alexander's generals after his death, continued their own cultures. We call the kingdoms Hellenistic (like Greek) rather then Hellenic (Greek) because of this.

Although a Macedonian, he was raised in Greek culture under the tutorship of Aristotle.

Marching armies need to be supplied. Quite often they cannot depend simply on foraging for food as they moved along in ancient times. Alexander the Great was a great military leader who conquered much of the known western world in his time. One way he did this was through a better system of logistics, or better said a way to keep his army supplied as he marched from victory to victory. Alexander, a Macedonian, not a Greek, discarded the well known method of having animals loaded with army supplies. The idea was that any transport animal can pull more than it can carry on its back. The problem of pulling wagons of supplies lay with the harness used to connect the animal with the supply cart. Alexander's father was the first pioneer in Alexander's time. He reduced the logistics of the ancient Greeks by reducing the numbers of servants that marched along with each soldier. The Greeks had servants carry armor and weapons. This was changed by having the soldier carry much of his own supplies and it eliminated the numbers of servants, who slowed an army down.

In consideration of the aforementioned pack animals, the problem with the harness was that it impeded the lungs of the animal, plus over rough terrain, the wagons slowed everything down. Instead, Alexander had the animals carry supplies on their backs and thus were able to keep up with the marching soldiers. Alexander also made note of the superiority of the horse over the oxen. Oxen were great "strength " animals but were "temperamental" in nature. THe horse was more willing to "follow" instructions, so to speak,. Plus horses had more endurance. The bottom line was that minus the extra servants and minus the oxen, the marching soldier with a good horse simply moved along faster. Speed is an essential element in armies. Alexander made his forces move faster and their speed overcame the enemies he faced.

Through stories passed down in his homeland Macedonia and the rest of Greece and through the countries he influenced and impacted with his Hellenic (Greek) culture and to the countries they in turn influenced with Hellenic civilization.