note: during alexander’s march down the mediterranean coast, many cities surrendered without a fight. some were happy to have the persians overthrown. alexander treated these cities rather kindly. tyre ( ire\) was another matter. its citizens refused to surrender. they believed their city was unconquerable because it was built on an island and protected by high walls. alexander proceeded to build a causeway, or land bridge, of timber and rubble so his soldiers could cross from the mainland to the island. the city held out for seven months and tyrian counterattacks caused alexander to lose many men. in the end, however, the causeway was completed and alexander’s army smashed into the city.
when the last organized resistance was broken, alexander’s soldiers ranged through the city on a ferocious rampage. alexander had ordered that all except those who sought sanctuary safety in the temple were to be slain, and his commands were executed with savage relish. the air grew thick with smoke from burning buildings. seven thousand tyrians died—and the number would have been far higher had it not been for the men of sidon, who entered the city alongside alexander’s troops. even though tyre had been sidon’s rival for centuries, these neighbors of the victims, horrified by what they now witnessed, managed to smuggle some 15,000 of them to safety.
the great city... was now utterly destroyed. her king, azimilch, and various other notables, including envoys from carthage, had taken refuge in the temple of melkart, and alexander spared their lives. the remaining survivors, some 30,000 in number, were sold into slavery. two thousand men of military age were crucified.
document analysis
1. how did alexander feel about tyre’s ability to hold him off for seven months? how do you know?
2. how might you explain alexander’s decision not to kill anyone who took sanctuary in the temple?
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?

Question

note: during alexander’s march down the mediterranean coast, many cities surrendered without a fight. some were happy to have the persians overthrown. alexander treated these cities rather kindly. tyre (	ire\) was another matter. its citizens refused to surrender. they believed their city was unconquerable because it was built on an island and protected by high walls. alexander proceeded to build a causeway, or land bridge, of timber and rubble so his soldiers could cross from the mainland to the island. the city held out for seven months and tyrian counterattacks caused alexander to lose many men. in the end, however, the causeway was completed and alexander’s army smashed into the city.
when the last organized resistance was broken, alexander’s soldiers ranged through the city on a ferocious rampage. alexander had ordered that all except those who sought sanctuary safety in the temple were to be slain, and his commands were executed with savage relish. the air grew thick with smoke from burning buildings. seven thousand tyrians died—and the number would have been far higher had it not been for the men of sidon, who entered the city alongside alexander’s troops. even though tyre had been sidon’s rival for centuries, these neighbors of the victims, horrified by what they now witnessed, managed to smuggle some 15,000 of them to safety.
the great city... was now utterly destroyed. her king, azimilch, and various other notables, including envoys from carthage, had taken refuge in the temple of melkart, and alexander spared their lives. the remaining survivors, some 30,000 in number, were sold into slavery. two thousand men of military age were crucified.
document analysis
1. how did alexander feel about tyre’s ability to hold him off for seven months? how do you know?
2. how might you explain alexander’s decision not to kill anyone who took sanctuary in the temple?
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?

Accepted Answer

To answer these document analysis questions, we analyze the text and use historical context:

### Question 1
# Brief Explanations:
Alexander likely felt angry/frustrated. We know this because after Tyre held him off for seven months, his soldiers' rampage was "ferocious" and he ordered most to be slain, showing his rage at the resistance.
# Answer:
Alexander felt angry/frustrated. We know this from his soldiers’ ferocious rampage and his order to slay most Tyrians after the seven - month resistance, indicating his rage over the prolonged hold - off.

### Question 2
# Brief Explanations:
Temples were sacred in ancient times. Alexander may have respected religious customs, or wanted to show mercy in a limited way to gain favor with the gods or appear just, so he spared those in the temple.
# Answer:
Alexander may have spared those in the temple because temples were sacred in ancient cultures. Respecting religious sanctuaries could have been to honor religious customs, gain divine favor, or present a more just image, even as he was brutal elsewhere.

### Question 3
# Brief Explanations:
Crucifying 2,000 men shows Alexander was ruthless and willing to use extreme, brutal punishment to assert control, instill fear, and take revenge for the resistance, demonstrating his harsh and merciless side.
# Answer:
From his decision to crucify 2,000 men, we learn that Alexander was ruthless and merciless. He used extreme, brutal punishment to assert his control, instill fear in others, and take revenge for the resistance Tyre put up.

### Question 4
# Brief Explanations:
Severe treatment of survivors (like slavery, crucifixion) could serve as a warning to other cities not to resist him, break Tyre’s ability to rebel again, and eliminate potential future threats from the Tyrian population.
# Answer:
Military reasons for the severe treatment could be to deter other cities from resisting (by making an example of Tyre), destroy Tyre’s ability to rebel again (by reducing its population and breaking its spirit), and eliminate potential future threats from the Tyrian survivors.

### Question 5
# Brief Explanations:
To argue Alexander was great, we can say he showed strategic patience (built a causeway to take Tyre after seven months), and his victory expanded his empire, showing his military genius and determination to achieve his goals.
# Answer:
To argue Alexander was great, we can use the document to show his strategic ability: he patiently built a causeway to overcome Tyre’s defenses after seven months of resistance, demonstrating his military genius and determination. His victory also expanded his empire, showing his great leadership in conquest.

### Question 6
# Brief Explanations:
To argue he was not great, point to his brutality: ordering the slaying of most Tyrians, crucifying 2,000 men, and enslaving 30,000, showing his merciless and inhumane treatment of civilians and prisoners.
# Answer:
To argue Alexander was not great, we can use the document to show his brutality: he ordered the slaying of most Tyrians (with 7,000 dying), crucified 2,000 men, and enslaved 30,000 survivors. His merciless and inhumane treatment of civilians and prisoners shows he was not great in terms of moral leadership.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Question 1

Answer:

Question 2