Alexander the Great was famous for his military power and is a legendary figure in history.
Much of what we know about Alexander the Great is unreliable and steeped in myth; a lot of these mythologies were used by Alexander’s successors.
In the Kingdom of Thrace, during the reign of Lysimachus—a successor of Alexander the Great who lived from 361 BCE to 281 BCE—an interesting coin was issued. This coin, which featured the head of Alexander the Great with ram’s horns on either side of his crown, was issued in the ancient city of Parium, in the northwestern region of modern-day Turkey. The horns were the symbol of the Egyptian god Amun—or Zeus, who is often conflated with Amun—from whom Alexander claimed descent. Flanked with these godlike horns, Alexander attained the status of a deity.
Silver coin; left, front,, head of Alexander the Great wearing the horns of Zeus Ammon; right, back, seated Athena.
Silver coin; left, front,, head of Alexander the Great wearing the horns of Zeus Ammon; right, back, seated Athena.
Silver coin; left, front,, head of Alexander the Great wearing the horns of Zeus Ammon; right, back, seated Athena. Image credit: British Museum
Surprisingly, Alexander himself did not issue coins with his own image; his successors did. Why would his successors refer back to their deceased predecessor as they established new empires? The reason is that Alexander the Great was—and still is—a powerful symbol of power, military genius, and conquest, whether or not this description of him is historically accurate. His image, name, and legendary power remained resonant—and politically visible—long after his death.
OligarchyHome Social Sciences and the Law Political Science and Government Political Science: Terms and ConceptsInternational Encyclopedia...International Encyclopedia...The Columbia Encyclopedia,...The Oxford Pocket Dictionary...Further reading<span>TOOLS </span>Oligarchy<span>International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | </span>1968COPYRIGHT 2008 Thomson Gale.Oligarchy
bibliography
The word “oligarchy” and the concepts which it symbolizes originated in ancient Greece. In its basic use, the word identified one of the general forms of government recognized by the Greeks: that in which political government is conducted by a few persons or families. It was also used more narrowly, by Aristotle for example, to refer to the debased form of aristocracy, that is, to government by the few or by a faction. The term “oligarchy” was also used to refer to the small group of persons who enjoyed a monopoly of political control in oligarchic governments; the term usually had the added sense that the oligarchy ruled in its own rather than in the public interest. For Aristotle, classification of governments rested on two independent variables: the number of persons who ruled and the purposes served by their rule. Oligarchy was present when a few persons ruled for their own satisfaction.
Development of the concept. The original uses of the term were associated with particular social and political regimes and with intellectual modes of analyzing them. Typically, societies were small and traditional and rested on established classes, including a slave class. Within Greek cities citizenship status often identified a large but still minority class that could at least claim to participate in political decisions. Whatever the changes in political forms, this “upper class” was relatively stable by reason of property holding, authority relations with other classes, social position, and so on, and oligarchy could reasonably be expected to be succeeded by other known forms of government. Classical analysts found oligarchies to be endemic among ancient states, but they viewed them as unstable since they rested on military, economic, and leadership factors which were transitory as compared with the continuing forces which supported the relatively large upper classes in traditionalist societies.
In the modern view, these classical conceptions, including oligarchy and the ideas associated with it, are far too simple for effective analysis. Indeed, classical writing makes it clear that the conceptions based on the formal structure of governments were not adequate even then, in spite of the particular emphasis given to form. Greek analysts dealt with the phenomena of power, with the importance of procedures, and, of course, with the paramount role of values. These matters were merged with discussions of political form, but the elements were not clearly discriminated. The subtleties and complexities of Greek political thought do not appear to good advantage in this particular classificatory system.
The Continental Congress hotly debated all these issues EXCEPT (B) Taxation.
Answer:
economic policies because of president Jackson
Explanation:
Answer:
critical discussion each of the four areas you have explained above
