Because he led the union armies to victory over the confederacy in the american civil war
This geographic polarization makes the population politically speaking to be very divided because these points of geographical difference are very significant for determining political polarization.
Classical Political Geography has as its precursor the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel, who laid the scientific and systematizing bases for this science with the publication, in 1897, of the work Political Geography. For Ratzel, the strength of the State was closely linked to space - in its shape, extent, relief, climate and availability of natural resources -, to its position - social relations established between the State and its circulating environment at the national and international level - and, finally, to the sense (or spirit) of the people, which represented the strength of that determined people in relation to another. These ideas, understood in a simplistic and distorted way, would be known as "geographic determinism". (Geographical determinism, however, occurs when natural elements are given the sole role in defining the constitutive aspects of societies.)
All were civil rights cases that affected the nation.
Answer:
Alexander was “great” because he easily conquered a lot of land and established prominent societies, like Alexandria.
Alexander wasn’t “great” because he was egotistical in naming a city after him and conquering land just for greed.
Alexander was “great” because he was smart enough to cross the river and use Porus’ own elephants against him.
Alexander was not “great” because he tricked a ruler and killed many men in war only because he was greedy and wanted more land.
Alexander was most likely very religious, and it seems that in Ancient Greek anyone seeking refuge in a temple should be shown mercy. Also, if Alexander had killed everyone in the city than there would have been no point in conquering the city except for land.
