Was Alexander the Great really that great - Stephanie Honchell Smith
video description
Date: 2025-12-23
Related videos
• TED-Ed
Comments and reviews: 20
aliabdumannoppov
Absolutely! Let’s break them down one by one:
1. A living demigod: Someone who is part human and part divine, often revered or admired, and still alive.
2. Alike: Similar or having a resemblance in appearance or nature.
3. Gordian knot: A complex or difficult problem; also a reference to the legendary knot that Alexander the Great solved by cutting it.
4. Unprovoked: Without any cause or reason; happening without warning or justification.
5. To sack someone: To plunder or loot a place, or to dismiss someone from a position.
6. Liberate: To set someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression.
7. Despot: A ruler with absolute power, often one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.
8. Disgruntled: Dissatisfied or unhappy, often due to unfair treatment.
9. Reap the glory: To gain honor, praise, or recognition, usually from someone else’s efforts.
10. Ride someone's coattails: To gain an advantage or benefit from someone else’s success.
11. To limit their maneuverability: To restrict someone’s ability to move freely or to act effectively.
12. Befitting: Appropriate or suitable to the circumstances.
13. Stumble upon: To find or encounter something by chance.
14. Mutinied: To rebel or revolt, especially against authority.
15. Lead cavalry charges: To command mounted troops in an attack or offensive.
16. Cultural assimilation: The process by which a group or individual adopts the cultural traits of another group, often losing their original identity.
17. Resentment: Bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly.
18. Hereditary king: A monarch who inherits their position by birthright.
19. Semi-divine: Partially divine; having some divine qualities but not fully a deity.
20. Uninvested in something: Not emotionally or financially committed to something.
21. Fabricated: Made up or invented, often with the intent to deceive.
22. To invoke his name: To call upon someone’s name, often for authority or power.
23. Ushering: Leading someone into a place or introducing something new.
24. Embattled leader: A leader who is struggling or under attack, often facing significant challenges.
25. Put the history on trial: To critically examine or reassess historical events or figures.
If you’d like more detailed examples or any other help, just let me know!
reply
Absolutely! Let’s break them down one by one:
1. A living demigod: Someone who is part human and part divine, often revered or admired, and still alive.
2. Alike: Similar or having a resemblance in appearance or nature.
3. Gordian knot: A complex or difficult problem; also a reference to the legendary knot that Alexander the Great solved by cutting it.
4. Unprovoked: Without any cause or reason; happening without warning or justification.
5. To sack someone: To plunder or loot a place, or to dismiss someone from a position.
6. Liberate: To set someone free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression.
7. Despot: A ruler with absolute power, often one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.
8. Disgruntled: Dissatisfied or unhappy, often due to unfair treatment.
9. Reap the glory: To gain honor, praise, or recognition, usually from someone else’s efforts.
10. Ride someone's coattails: To gain an advantage or benefit from someone else’s success.
11. To limit their maneuverability: To restrict someone’s ability to move freely or to act effectively.
12. Befitting: Appropriate or suitable to the circumstances.
13. Stumble upon: To find or encounter something by chance.
14. Mutinied: To rebel or revolt, especially against authority.
15. Lead cavalry charges: To command mounted troops in an attack or offensive.
16. Cultural assimilation: The process by which a group or individual adopts the cultural traits of another group, often losing their original identity.
17. Resentment: Bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly.
18. Hereditary king: A monarch who inherits their position by birthright.
19. Semi-divine: Partially divine; having some divine qualities but not fully a deity.
20. Uninvested in something: Not emotionally or financially committed to something.
21. Fabricated: Made up or invented, often with the intent to deceive.
22. To invoke his name: To call upon someone’s name, often for authority or power.
23. Ushering: Leading someone into a place or introducing something new.
24. Embattled leader: A leader who is struggling or under attack, often facing significant challenges.
25. Put the history on trial: To critically examine or reassess historical events or figures.
If you’d like more detailed examples or any other help, just let me know!
reply
ted_ed
I always encourage friends when visiting Greece, to pay a visit to Vergina in the region of Macedonia (best known as the site of ancient Aigai-Aegae, the first capital of Macedon. It might be difficult for non Greeks to read or understand anything there because all the inscriptions are in Ancient Greek, but at least you can feel the awe and admire the grandeur of the Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia.
In 336 B. C. King Philip II was assassinated in Aigai's theatre and his son, Alexander the Great, was proclaimed King. In 1977, the burial sites of several kings of Macedon were uncovered, including the tomb of Philip II which had not been disturbed or looted, unlike so many of the other tombs there.
The ancient town was also the site of an extensive royal palace. The archaeological museum of Vergina was built to house all the artifacts found at the site and is one of the most important museums in Greece.
Aigai has been awarded UNESCO World Heritage Site status as an exceptional testimony to a significant development in European civilization, at the transition from classical city-state to the imperial structure of the Hellenistic period.
reply
I always encourage friends when visiting Greece, to pay a visit to Vergina in the region of Macedonia (best known as the site of ancient Aigai-Aegae, the first capital of Macedon. It might be difficult for non Greeks to read or understand anything there because all the inscriptions are in Ancient Greek, but at least you can feel the awe and admire the grandeur of the Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia.
In 336 B. C. King Philip II was assassinated in Aigai's theatre and his son, Alexander the Great, was proclaimed King. In 1977, the burial sites of several kings of Macedon were uncovered, including the tomb of Philip II which had not been disturbed or looted, unlike so many of the other tombs there.
The ancient town was also the site of an extensive royal palace. The archaeological museum of Vergina was built to house all the artifacts found at the site and is one of the most important museums in Greece.
Aigai has been awarded UNESCO World Heritage Site status as an exceptional testimony to a significant development in European civilization, at the transition from classical city-state to the imperial structure of the Hellenistic period.
reply
kepspark3362
The honest & likely the best way to seek the truth is to be open about the judgement/conclusion, that any can be correct & then seek, conceive & note all points fairly. These 2, are kind of debating, each is already set on the judgement, & finding evidence, arguments to support its existing judgements. I think better approach is to 1st acknowledge that there's exactly 1 set of events that actually happened, it is fixed despite what anyone thinks happened, then apply mind to all sides in unbiased manner, w/o emotionally wanting 1 or the other to be true, to every aspect related to the topic. Ultimately, the most 1 could do is form best guess of what happened. Most details of all that happened will be unaccounted for, missed, weren't recorded, weren't told to everyone else, some were fabricated, therefore making any opinion about it absurd. Only bits of information here & there can be salvaged. Having firm opinion about it just shows how little 1 is able to imagine of how much 1 is missing. Whether it's great or bad, that's subjective, relies on personal prejudices, values.
reply
The honest & likely the best way to seek the truth is to be open about the judgement/conclusion, that any can be correct & then seek, conceive & note all points fairly. These 2, are kind of debating, each is already set on the judgement, & finding evidence, arguments to support its existing judgements. I think better approach is to 1st acknowledge that there's exactly 1 set of events that actually happened, it is fixed despite what anyone thinks happened, then apply mind to all sides in unbiased manner, w/o emotionally wanting 1 or the other to be true, to every aspect related to the topic. Ultimately, the most 1 could do is form best guess of what happened. Most details of all that happened will be unaccounted for, missed, weren't recorded, weren't told to everyone else, some were fabricated, therefore making any opinion about it absurd. Only bits of information here & there can be salvaged. Having firm opinion about it just shows how little 1 is able to imagine of how much 1 is missing. Whether it's great or bad, that's subjective, relies on personal prejudices, values.
reply
WWEwins
3: 30 The name India comes from the Indus River, which flows through Pakistan. Since Alexander the Great reached the Indus region, it is incorrect to say that he did not know about India (as the modern nation of India did not exist at that time; it was established on 15 August 1947. When Alexander crossed the Indus River in 326 BCE, the Greeks already referred to the lands east of the river as Indika. ’ The word Indika’ was first used by the Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BCE to describe the lands beyond the Indus, mainly in the region of Pakistan. Later, writers like Megasthenes, in his work Indica’ (c. 300 BCE, gave detailed accounts of the region, including its geography, people, and culture, covering areas of both Pakistan and present-day India. Alexander’s campaign reached as far east as Multan, in Pakistan, further confirming Greek knowledge of the region.
reply
3: 30 The name India comes from the Indus River, which flows through Pakistan. Since Alexander the Great reached the Indus region, it is incorrect to say that he did not know about India (as the modern nation of India did not exist at that time; it was established on 15 August 1947. When Alexander crossed the Indus River in 326 BCE, the Greeks already referred to the lands east of the river as Indika. ’ The word Indika’ was first used by the Greek historian Herodotus in the 5th century BCE to describe the lands beyond the Indus, mainly in the region of Pakistan. Later, writers like Megasthenes, in his work Indica’ (c. 300 BCE, gave detailed accounts of the region, including its geography, people, and culture, covering areas of both Pakistan and present-day India. Alexander’s campaign reached as far east as Multan, in Pakistan, further confirming Greek knowledge of the region.
reply
KumarAnshs
I’m sorry, but I genuinely disliked this. The audio feels flat, the pacing is rushed, the animation lacks polish, and the voice acting shows little emotional range. The editing doesn’t help either, and I don’t understand why the original animated character was removed.
The content itself feels incomplete. Why wasn’t the destruction of Thebes addressed Why not engage more directly with Buddhism As a Buddhist, that perspective would have been meaningful. The River Hydaspes is shown but never discussedwhy include it at all if it isn’t explored This feels unnecessarily narrow in scope.
There were also many missed opportunities to present Alexander in a more nuanced way, both defending and critiquing him. And where was Bucephalus His absence is noticeable.
I’m sorry, but this was genuinely difficult to watch.
reply
I’m sorry, but I genuinely disliked this. The audio feels flat, the pacing is rushed, the animation lacks polish, and the voice acting shows little emotional range. The editing doesn’t help either, and I don’t understand why the original animated character was removed.
The content itself feels incomplete. Why wasn’t the destruction of Thebes addressed Why not engage more directly with Buddhism As a Buddhist, that perspective would have been meaningful. The River Hydaspes is shown but never discussedwhy include it at all if it isn’t explored This feels unnecessarily narrow in scope.
There were also many missed opportunities to present Alexander in a more nuanced way, both defending and critiquing him. And where was Bucephalus His absence is noticeable.
I’m sorry, but this was genuinely difficult to watch.
reply
Antrikkos576
4: 07. resentment from Greeks, Persians and Macedonians is so poor from a historical perspective. If you're going to use the term Greeks to refer to the various city-states that fall under the umbrella of Hellenistic civilization then you have to include Macedonians in that category. If you reject this idea of a sort of unity among these states and you consider Macedon as its own thing then you should do the same for all other states. So either Greeks and Persians or Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians, etc and Persians could be considered accurate. But to single out Macedonians like that can only mean you have a political motive there. Very poor from TED-Ed
reply
4: 07. resentment from Greeks, Persians and Macedonians is so poor from a historical perspective. If you're going to use the term Greeks to refer to the various city-states that fall under the umbrella of Hellenistic civilization then you have to include Macedonians in that category. If you reject this idea of a sort of unity among these states and you consider Macedon as its own thing then you should do the same for all other states. So either Greeks and Persians or Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, Macedonians, etc and Persians could be considered accurate. But to single out Macedonians like that can only mean you have a political motive there. Very poor from TED-Ed
reply
thomasecker9405
1: 52
Sorry, prosecutor, but all of the evidence we have points towards Pausania, the lover, in question, acting solely in revenge for the affront he had suffered under Attalus (and Philip essentially giving Attalus a slap on the wrist and no other punishment, with no ties to Alexander the Great, though some suspect that there were other conspirators working with him. Plus, two of Pausania's sons were later put on trial and deemed guilty by the court, not as scapegoats for Alexander, but equally guilty, with the third son, also named Alexander, also being found guilty of treachery by Alexander the Great himself.
reply
1: 52
Sorry, prosecutor, but all of the evidence we have points towards Pausania, the lover, in question, acting solely in revenge for the affront he had suffered under Attalus (and Philip essentially giving Attalus a slap on the wrist and no other punishment, with no ties to Alexander the Great, though some suspect that there were other conspirators working with him. Plus, two of Pausania's sons were later put on trial and deemed guilty by the court, not as scapegoats for Alexander, but equally guilty, with the third son, also named Alexander, also being found guilty of treachery by Alexander the Great himself.
reply
ted_ed
Visually the animation is smooth but
The old one had a lot more personality to it, with the stylized rigidness allowing you to focus on the point being presented for each argument. Another thing is the voices for the lawyers and the judge don't really match well with there character designs at all.
Please if possible bring back the old animation style, I am for one to at least try new styles from time to time, but clearly this one was not a good fit.
So maybe in the meantime return to the original animation and later in the future you can potentially try a new animation style.
reply
Visually the animation is smooth but
The old one had a lot more personality to it, with the stylized rigidness allowing you to focus on the point being presented for each argument. Another thing is the voices for the lawyers and the judge don't really match well with there character designs at all.
Please if possible bring back the old animation style, I am for one to at least try new styles from time to time, but clearly this one was not a good fit.
So maybe in the meantime return to the original animation and later in the future you can potentially try a new animation style.
reply
ted_ed
He sacrificed lots of people in Persia for his lover's soul. This makes him so called great He forced all over the world to accept the Hellenism. What kind of a great man do this forcely He destroyed a city and killed all of it's citizens because they did want him to rule. And now he is great Are you kidding me He killed greek soldiers and commanders who fought for Persian kings he even tortured Persian commander who standed against him in Palestine. And yet you call him a Great man The one who ruined ancient civilizations Well I wouldn't buy that
reply
He sacrificed lots of people in Persia for his lover's soul. This makes him so called great He forced all over the world to accept the Hellenism. What kind of a great man do this forcely He destroyed a city and killed all of it's citizens because they did want him to rule. And now he is great Are you kidding me He killed greek soldiers and commanders who fought for Persian kings he even tortured Persian commander who standed against him in Palestine. And yet you call him a Great man The one who ruined ancient civilizations Well I wouldn't buy that
reply
timecrest7708
3: 32 Alexander the great 100% knew about India. The Greeks had a far better understanding of geography than many would think with them not only being the first people to discover that the Earth was round, but also sent expeditions that went as far as the Arctic Circle and the British Isles. Writers like Herodotus wrote extensively about far away lands, including India, writings, which many Greeks, including Alexander would have most definitely had read.
reply
3: 32 Alexander the great 100% knew about India. The Greeks had a far better understanding of geography than many would think with them not only being the first people to discover that the Earth was round, but also sent expeditions that went as far as the Arctic Circle and the British Isles. Writers like Herodotus wrote extensively about far away lands, including India, writings, which many Greeks, including Alexander would have most definitely had read.
reply
KTChamberlain
Can we all agree that Alexander was great at conquering, but he wasn't great at ruling For crying out loud, when he was on his deathbed, he refused to name an heir/successor and just said, To the strongest meaning you all duke it out and reap the glory to whoever comes out on top as a giant middle-finger act to his empire, which led to centuries of conflicts between his generals who rushed to claim dibs among said empire like Ptolemy I.
reply
Can we all agree that Alexander was great at conquering, but he wasn't great at ruling For crying out loud, when he was on his deathbed, he refused to name an heir/successor and just said, To the strongest meaning you all duke it out and reap the glory to whoever comes out on top as a giant middle-finger act to his empire, which led to centuries of conflicts between his generals who rushed to claim dibs among said empire like Ptolemy I.
reply
Zach415
When we call him Alexander The Great we don’t mean Alexander the morally upstanding. For example, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone Olivander has this to say about Voldemort: he who must not be named did great thingsterrible, yesbut great and he wasn’t wrong. Voldemort was a great and skilled wizard. And Alexander the Great was a great and skilled general who conquered everything from Greece to Pakistan and never lost a battle
reply
When we call him Alexander The Great we don’t mean Alexander the morally upstanding. For example, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone Olivander has this to say about Voldemort: he who must not be named did great thingsterrible, yesbut great and he wasn’t wrong. Voldemort was a great and skilled wizard. And Alexander the Great was a great and skilled general who conquered everything from Greece to Pakistan and never lost a battle
reply
bartsfartandshart
The claim of the prosecutor that Persia was just one empire is really doing it injustice: Centuries earlier, Cyrus the Great had conquered what was then the entire known world in an age where roads weren't commonplace.
Alexander conquering the Persian Empire, which was at that time most of the known world to Alexander, almost in its entirety within just a decade was one of the most impressive achievements in human history.
reply
The claim of the prosecutor that Persia was just one empire is really doing it injustice: Centuries earlier, Cyrus the Great had conquered what was then the entire known world in an age where roads weren't commonplace.
Alexander conquering the Persian Empire, which was at that time most of the known world to Alexander, almost in its entirety within just a decade was one of the most impressive achievements in human history.
reply
mrscoldarrow
He only conquered one empire yes, the. Only empire. The largest empire the world had seen at that point. The empire that encompassed most of the known world to the Greeks of the time. That empire. Also how many other people can claim to have destroyed an empire of equal size A handful
Also, Persepolis was not the only city Alexander sacked, he also besieged and ransacked Tyre and turned it from an island into a peninsula.
reply
He only conquered one empire yes, the. Only empire. The largest empire the world had seen at that point. The empire that encompassed most of the known world to the Greeks of the time. That empire. Also how many other people can claim to have destroyed an empire of equal size A handful
Also, Persepolis was not the only city Alexander sacked, he also besieged and ransacked Tyre and turned it from an island into a peninsula.
reply
blakedickenson2394
Human history, for better or for worse is, conquer and pillage. He is without a doubt histories #1 conqueror archetype that every single militant commander the world over admired and tried to rival or best his achievements.
The dude has a serious case put forward to be considered the most influential human of all time. Definitely the most influential non-religious person at least
reply
Human history, for better or for worse is, conquer and pillage. He is without a doubt histories #1 conqueror archetype that every single militant commander the world over admired and tried to rival or best his achievements.
The dude has a serious case put forward to be considered the most influential human of all time. Definitely the most influential non-religious person at least
reply
HotNEasy69
I mean, not to mention, what’s often framed as his natural military prowess was something he actively sought out he had Aristotle teach him the exact strategies of Cyrus the Great and simply weaponized Persian innovations against the Persians themselves during a well timed period of internal instability. TLDR it wasn’t a miracle
reply
I mean, not to mention, what’s often framed as his natural military prowess was something he actively sought out he had Aristotle teach him the exact strategies of Cyrus the Great and simply weaponized Persian innovations against the Persians themselves during a well timed period of internal instability. TLDR it wasn’t a miracle
reply
schizoidboy
When it comes down to it he was one of the best military leaders of all times. West Point Museum has a display set up for him pointing out the extent of his conquests and even comparing it to the size of the United States. In the end he was the connection between Europe and Asia which didn't exist before his conquests.
reply
When it comes down to it he was one of the best military leaders of all times. West Point Museum has a display set up for him pointing out the extent of his conquests and even comparing it to the size of the United States. In the end he was the connection between Europe and Asia which didn't exist before his conquests.
reply
momo7gato
Alexander was little more than a virus destroying other civilizations.
Hellenization makes it sound like the other cultures were backwards, which they definitely were not.
He was also the inspiration for many future dictators, warlords and despots that are consumed by bloodlust under the banner of glory.
reply
Alexander was little more than a virus destroying other civilizations.
Hellenization makes it sound like the other cultures were backwards, which they definitely were not.
He was also the inspiration for many future dictators, warlords and despots that are consumed by bloodlust under the banner of glory.
reply
shubhamnema8281
What is this Ted Where is usual version I'm halfway through the video and struggling to go further, the new characters, voices (can't differentiate, animation and everything about this video is disappointing, I don't want to finish the rest. Didn't expect this from Ted team
reply
What is this Ted Where is usual version I'm halfway through the video and struggling to go further, the new characters, voices (can't differentiate, animation and everything about this video is disappointing, I don't want to finish the rest. Didn't expect this from Ted team
reply
ted_ed
Alexander of Macedon may not have been a morally great man, but there's no denying that he truly was great. He achieved a lot in his thirty two years of life. And he may have only conquered ONE empire, but he eventually did conquer the world. that's why he's still talked about.
reply
Alexander of Macedon may not have been a morally great man, but there's no denying that he truly was great. He achieved a lot in his thirty two years of life. And he may have only conquered ONE empire, but he eventually did conquer the world. that's why he's still talked about.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
