3. what do you learn about alexander from his decision to crucify 2,000 men?

4. can you think of military reasons for the severe treatment of tyrian survivors?

5. how can you use this document to argue that alexander was great?

6. how can you use this document to argue that alexander was not great?

© 2011 the dbq project
this page may be reproduced for classroom use

Question

3. what do you learn about alexander from his decision to crucify 2,000 men?

4. can you think of military reasons for the severe treatment of tyrian survivors?

5. how can you use this document to argue that alexander was great?

6. how can you use this document to argue that alexander was not great?

© 2011 the dbq project
this page may be reproduced for classroom use

Accepted Answer

Since the document content related to Alexander and the Tyrian situation is not fully provided (we only see the questions, not the document itself), I'll provide general guidance on how to approach these questions assuming it's about Alexander the Great and the siege of Tyre:

### Question 3: What do you learn about Alexander from his decision to crucify 2,000 men?
# Brief Explanations:
To answer this, we analyze the action. Crucifixion is a brutal, public punishment. It suggests Alexander was ruthless, willing to use extreme force to assert control, deter rebellion, or punish resistance. It shows his harsh leadership style and lack of mercy toward enemies.
# Answer:
From his decision to crucify 2,000 men, we learn that Alexander was ruthless and willing to use extreme, brutal measures to assert his authority, punish resistance (like from Tyrian defenders), and potentially deter future rebellions. His actions show a lack of mercy toward those who opposed him and a desire to establish dominance through fear.

### Question 4: Can you think of military reasons for the severe treatment of Tyrian survivors?
# Brief Explanations:
Military strategy involves deterrence, resource control, and sending messages. Severe treatment could deter other cities from resisting (so they surrender quickly, saving Alexander's troops' lives and resources). It could also eliminate potential Tyrian guerrilla fighters or resisters, secure the city (and its resources like the port) fully, and show his army's resolve, boosting morale while demoralizing enemies.
# Answer:
Yes, there are military reasons. Severe treatment of Tyrian survivors could **deter other cities** from resisting Alexander’s conquest (they’d fear similar punishment, so surrender quickly, saving his army time, lives, and resources). It could also **eliminate potential resistance** (e.g., Tyrian men who might later rebel or engage in guerrilla warfare) and **secure Tyre’s resources** (like its strategic port) by ensuring no internal threats. Additionally, it could **boost his army’s morale** (by showing resolve) and **demoralize enemy forces** elsewhere.

### Question 5: How can you use this document to argue that Alexander was great?
# Brief Explanations:
To argue "great," frame his actions as strategic leadership. The severe treatment (e.g., crucifixion) could be portrayed as a necessary, decisive move to unify his empire, establish order, and ensure long - term stability. It showed his strength as a leader, ability to make tough (if harsh) decisions to achieve his goals (like creating a vast empire), and his effectiveness in subduing resistance to build a lasting (albeit through fear) realm.
# Answer:
To argue Alexander was “great,” frame his actions as **decisive leadership** for empire - building. The severe treatment of Tyrian survivors (e.g., crucifixion) could be presented as a **necessary, strategic move** to:
- Deter future rebellions, ensuring long - term stability in his empire.
- Demonstrate his strength and resolve, which were vital to uniting diverse regions under his rule.
- Secure Tyre (a strategic port) for trade and military operations, advancing his goal of creating a vast, powerful empire.
In this view, his harshness was a “great” leader’s willingness to make tough (if brutal) decisions to achieve grand, historical goals.

### Question 6: How can you use this document to argue that Alexander was not great?
# Brief Explanations:
To argue "not great," focus on morality and long - term governance. His actions (crucifixion, severe treatment) were morally repugnant, showing cruelty and lack of empathy. Great leaders (in a moral sense) should rule with justice, not fear. His brutality could also breed resentment, leading to future unrest (undermining his “greatness” as a unifier) and showed he prioritized power over human life, contradicting ideals of good leadership.
# Answer:
To argue Alexander was “not great,” highlight his **moral failings** and short - sightedness:
- His decision to crucify 2,000 men (and severely treat survivors) was **brutal and immoral**, showing a lack of empathy or justice—qualities often associated with “great” leaders.
- Such cruelty could breed **resentment** (even if it deterred immediate rebellion, it sowed hatred that might undermine long - term stability, contradicting the idea of a “great” unifier).
- A “great” leader should inspire loyalty through justice or vision, not fear. Alexander’s reliance on terror (via severe punishment) suggests he prioritized power over ethical governance.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Question 3: What do you learn about Alexander from his decision to crucify 2,000 men?

Answer:

Question 4: Can you think of military reasons for the severe treatment of Tyrian survivors?