Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to ATG podcast - intro to history by Khalil Niare MP3 song. ATG podcast - intro to history song from Khalil Niare is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 10:53. This high-quality MP3 track has 550.479 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 9 May 2024. Stream and download ATG podcast - intro to history by Khalil Niare for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
The ATG podcast discusses whether Alexander the Great deserved his title. Khalil argues that he was worthy due to his military accomplishments, while Nathan disagrees, citing his lack of concern for his men. They also discuss the negative consequences of his actions, his leadership style, and the contributions of his generals and advisors. They debate how different cultures and historical perspectives shape perceptions of his greatness. The podcast ends without a clear winner. Welcome to the ATG podcast, where we'll figure out whether or not Alexander the Great was really deserving of the Great title. I'm here with Emmaus Cortez with special guests Khalil and Nathan, who will assist us in our debate to truly depict how worthy Alexander the Great was of the Great title. Let's welcome our special guests, Khalil and Nathan. Khalil is a 15-year-old boy who is a rising sophomore at the Westminster Schools. He will be debating against Nathan, a 14-year-old boy who is also a rising sophomore attending the Westminster Schools. Khalil will be arguing that Alexander the Great was worthy of the title The Great. However, Nathan will be arguing the opposite and saying that Alexander the Great was not deserving of this title. The first question that we have for today is the definition of greatness. How do we define greatness in historical figures like Alexander the Great, and what qualities or achievements make someone great in history? I think the first thing that makes a leader great is good leadership in many aspects, especially in a wide variety. They can't just have one good thing here and then one good thing 20 years later and then be considered great. They have to consistently have good accomplishments and a good reputation. And speaking of accomplishments, they have to be in a wide variety. In my opinion, they can't just be on one specific thing, which for me is without Alexander the Great, he really only had accomplishments in the military aspect, nothing else. Which is why I don't really believe he was deserving of that title, especially in the aspect of following the definition of greatness. When we look at leaders that we define as great, we have leaders like Napoleon that defeated many armies, mostly on his own, which I think is another factor in determining somebody as really great, if they're able to use their limited resources and their especially weaker armies to defeat these larger enemies. And in the case of Alexander, he had his Macedonia that was able to take over the much larger Persian Empire and able to take over most of Greece. And he capitalized on their weakness during the time after several infighting and just after the war with the Persians. So the second question is, in what ways did Alexander's military conquest and empire building contribute to his reputation as great? How do you weigh these achievements against any negative consequences of his actions? Well, when we look at the time period, there's constant war all the time. So I think when the Caljula is at war, you can't really fault him on things that happened during the war. Especially since he's a military leader, things are bound to happen. You can't really have a war without casualties. It's hard to happen, especially in the ancient world where we've had much limited medical and scientific technology. Now, his reputation as the great, I mean, he took over probably one of the biggest empires in the ancient world. I think second maybe only to the Romans later on. The thing is with Alexander is that, the really thing that really is crazy is that he was only about 32 when he finished his conquest of basically the known world. He started off at 22, right after his dad died. And he was just like, it's time to just take over everybody. He didn't wait for anything. He used all his resources. He pushed his men. He only had a force of about 50,000 that he decided to take on the entire world with. I agree with you on the asset that his military drive could definitely lead to success. But I think the problem with him is with his accomplishments and how potentially it did not outweigh his negative actions. He was constantly wanting to conquer territories and go to war. Meaning he didn't really care about his men having proper rest, proper recovery. He just wanted to keep on conquering and basically become the biggest army so he could have more power in my opinion. I don't really think that should be considered a great. I think someone who deserves the title of the great should be caring about their men as well as conquering territories. Not just one or the other. All right. What are some negative aspects about Alexander's reign and conquest and how do they impact your assessment of his greatness? Well, one of the biggest things was that he was the lean cause of the death of the 10,000s back again to the fact that he didn't really let his men rest. Meaning that they would over time grow weaker in war and that would lead to their death. Although he was technically not really defeated in a big way, his men still fell a lot during each war. Which I really don't think should be considered a great title. If you're going to be named a great, you got to have a thriving kingdom and his was just slowly crumbling as it goes. And right after his death, it just ripped apart. I think the time period, like we said, casualties are bound to happen. But I think with Alexander, he had little to no choice when he was taking over what he wanted. Since he had to take over the Greeks quickly before they were able to rebuild their society. And the Persians had a much, much larger army. Roughly between 200 and 250,000. And Alexander, like I said, only had around 50,000 men. So he really had to use his time advantage and his smaller force as a surprise attack. With him, not really. Of course, he didn't really want to stop but we could account that to his inexperience. He was relatively young. But we do know he was at least lenient with his soldiers because he eventually did turn back when he got to run India. And we know he seemed to be around pretty gracious with the cities he's conquered. He created many new cities in the area. He put in place, he let the surrounding people keep their religions, their languages. He never really forced anything upon people. And maybe that just seems like something a good leader would do. Especially if you're a conqueror. So how do you think Alexander's leadership style and decision-making abilities influenced his legacy as a great leader or ruler? I mean, I can kind of see where his leadership style of constantly wanting to conquer territories and also bringing in the people to be part of Greek culture and all that. I can see where that's good leadership. He's not a downright cruel to his people. But I also agree that his decision-making abilities were not the best. I feel like he maybe should have stopped earlier than India. Because I think by that time his men were really tired, were really worn out. And I think that majorly led to his death was that they were all just too worn out and they couldn't fight. Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. He was very impulsive when it came to his decisions. Like he finished his days, died, he decided that it was time to conquer everybody. But maybe that adds a little bit to his great decision-making. Because even despite the fact that his odds were very against him, but he was still able to overcome these and get these insane military advantages. Which I think is just something to note. The next question is, to what extent was Ali Bandar's greatness dependent on the contributions of his generals, advisors, and the people of his empire? I think a lot of his greatness definitely depended on his soldiers. Like we said, he had a pretty small army. And I think with his generals, his generals definitely had a lot of say in his campaigns and a lot of help with them. Especially after he died, they argued a lot between themselves of who should get the empire. So they clearly had a lot of influence on Alexander being able to take over this large amount of space. The people in his empire, Alexander didn't really deal with that. I think he mostly, he really was just a military commander. I don't really know if you could say he actually led his country. And I think when it comes to his advisors, he probably did need a lot of help. Especially dealing with these huge powers. I agree with you. I think his greatness was heavily contributed by the people in his army, especially for his military thing. Because that's what he was really known for, was the amount of conquests and how many states he conquered. Whereas his just normal empire, he really didn't do much with them. He wasn't really known for that. But on the other hand, I can also see that Alexander was also himself doing stuff. Because we see really shortly after he passed away, his empire basically ripped apart. Showing he was holding it together in unison. So next would be, how do different cultures and historical perspectives shape perceptions of Alexander's greatness? Do you think modern views of Alexander differ significantly from those of his contemporaries? Wait, wait, wait. Just stop for a second and let it run and then say it again. What part? The whole thing. How do different cultures and historical perspectives shape perceptions of Alexander's greatness? Do you think modern views of Alexander differ significantly from those of his contemporaries? I think they could definitely in a way. Because most modern views of Alexander do depict him as the great. Whereas I think some of his contemporaries could definitely consider him as, although a great military leader, also again didn't really care about the people much in his empire. He really just cared about conquest. So I could see how that could differ from us depending on him as just a great leader from his contemporaries at the time. Thinking of him as a good military leader, just not a good overall leader. Yeah, I think that'll pretty much end off our conversation. I think we're out of time. Does anybody want to sign off the hosts? Thank you for this discussion. We had a great time. We're going to figure out who won. And thank you. This is the ATG Podcast. Thank you guys so much.
