Essay about Alexander The Great

Alexander the Great is perhaps the most fascinating and enigmatic man in all of history. Any thorough study of his life is likely to yield a highly confused portrait of this great conqueror and king. It has been said that he overshadowed the age in which he lived more than any man before or since. There is little agreement among scholars about the character and motivation of Alexander. To some, he is perceived as a blood-thirsty megalomaniac who should be ranked in the annals of history with Stalin and Hitler, while to others he is a visionary devoted to harmony among races and a united world. Many see him as a man motivated by a need to explore the world while others are convinced that he was only out to plunder the riches of the east. Much of this confusion can be traced to the oldest available sources of information we have about Alexander. None of these sources are primary, but some of them were written by authors with access to primary resources. These main sources were written by Arrian, Plutarch, Justin, Diodorus and Curtius. The works about Alexander which have been written relying upon these sources are understandably inconsistent with one another, because these oldest sources are themselves inconsistent. Out of the multitudinous works which have been written based on these sources and their progeny have been born three different portrayals of Alexander the Great. The first and second characterizations of Alexander are much alike. The first asserts that Alexander was always a terrible person, while the second asserts that he was a good man and leader until he had crossed into the east, where he became power-mad and corrupt. The third portrayal has Alexander as a saint who was only conquering the known world so that he could unify it into a peacefully-coexisting brotherhood built on cultural tolerance. All three of these schools of thought point to many of the same defining moments in Alexander’s life to prove their respective beliefs about the King. Despite this rampant confusion, there are certain aspects of Alexander’s life which are generally accepted as fact in nearly all of the accounts of his life. These facts are not very telling about his nature but it is necessary for them to be included for context in any study of Alexander’s life.

Alexander the Great was born in 356 B.C. in the month of July to the King and Queen of Macedon. His father Philip was busily turning Macedonia into a real power in the world through constant and sustained warfare. Philip was ruthless and tough and extremely successful in his undertakings. Some suggest that his great success left Alexander with a need to do even greater things just to prove his self-worth. Alexander’s mother was Olympias. She was the orphaned daughter of a former king of neighboring Epirus and was married to Philip at a very young age. She is said to have been quite beautiful but also possessed of a terrible temper and wilfulness which, when coupled with her great intelligence, made her difficult for Philip to live with. She and Philip were at war with each other for most of Alexander’s childhood. these are the types of basic facts that are accepted by most historians about the parents of Alexander the Great. All other information about them seems to be subject to various and sundry interpretations despite the fact that it is all based on the same basic information.

Alexander developed quite a few long-term friendships, but the one which seems to be generally regarded as the longest-lasting and most important is his life-long friendship with Hephaestion. The friendship probably began in early childhood and ended with Hephaestion’s death of illness a few months before Alexander’s. At Hephaestion’s death, Alexander became quite mad with grief. During life the two had portrayed themselves as Achilles (Alexander) and Patrochus (Hephaestion), and it is generally accepted that this was a genuine and deeply-felt friendship. This about all of their relationship which is accepted by most sources. The rest of it is, as always, subject to diverse interpretations.

Alexander had many tutors in his childhood and youth, but of them all, three names occur again and again: Aristotle, Leonidas and Lysimachus. Both Leonidas and Lysimachus were from areas close to Olympias’ home and Leonidas was also her kinsman. Leonidas was stern and controlling, and was in the habit of searching Alexander’s things to insure that Olympias had not smuggled any luxuries to her son. Lysimachus was quite a different sort of man. He was much beloved of Alexander and liked to call himself Phoenix to Alexander’s Achilles. Once while on an expedition in Arabia, Alexander risked his life to save the feeble old Lysimachus, who had insisted on following Alexander on the mission. Aristotle is almost universally considered to be the most important of the three. He was chosen by Philip to tutor Alexander and some other youths who were sons of Macedonian nobles and Alexander’s contemporaries and friends (including Hephaestion). These are some of the facts which most accounts of Alexander accept about his tutors. Almost everything else seems to be subject to the interpretation of the respective author.

At the age of sixteen, Alexander was appointed Regent while his father was waging war in Thrace. Alexander took the opportunity to subdue a rebelling people called Maedi and founded a small colony which he named Alexandropolis. Alexander was then made a general for further war in Thrace and his time with Aristotle was at an end. Alexander continued in this new career of acting as regent when required and as an important general in his father’s army. At the decisive battle at Chaeronea, Alexander was instrumental in the Macedonian defeat of the Theban Sacred Band which had never before been beaten.

A disastrous turn of events occurred when Philip took a girl younger than Alexander for his new wife and the girl’s uncle made a toast hoping for a “legitimate”, full-blooded Macedonian heir for Philip’s throne. Alexander reacted with fury and a split between Philip and Alexander occurred which sent Alexander racing with his friends and mother across the border into Epirus. Alexander left his mother in the royal house of Epirus and sped on to Illyria to foment rebellion against his father. The rift was bridged and Alexander returned home and was present for the marriage of his sister to their uncle, the King of Epirus. Philip fell to the assassin’s blade at the wedding festivities and Alexander became King of Macedon at age twenty.

Alexander soon took his army and crossed into Asia Minor in search of conquest in 334 B.C. He immediately won the important battle of Granicus. Alexander went on to conquer all of the Persian empire and beyond over the next eleven years. His career did not end until his premature death in Babylon at age thirty-three. Over this span, he waged and won some of the most impressive victories known to history. He also attempted (for whatever reasons) to unite the world of the Greeks with that of the Persians.

It is indeed terribly frustrating that almost every aspect (no matter how seemingly insignificant) of Alexander the Great’s life is subject to such widely varying interpretations with very different conclusions. Any study of Alexander forces the researcher to sift through multitudinous accounts and choose those which seem most plausible. Unfortunately, this is exactly the same procedure that most Alexander-scholars have been following for hundreds of years, and it has only led to the creation of more and more variations of the story.

The greatest problems in an examination of Alexander the Great are the early sources of information about him and the different interpretations to which these sources have lent themselves. There are five historians from antiquity whose works on Alexander are still in existence. They are Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus, Justin, and Curtius. These writers lived and produced their works hundreds of years after Alexander’s death. However, it is upon these works that we must rely because all of the many accounts of Alexander’s life which were written by his contemporaries and associates have been lost to us forever.

Of all of these five, it is Arrian whose account is generally considered the best and most reliable. Arrian was an official of the Roman empire when he wrote his account of Alexander around 250 A.D. Arrian is the only one of the five who included the names of his sources and his reasons for choosing to rely upon them. Arrian’s main sources were the memoirs written by Ptolemy, one of Alexander’s generals, and the writings of Aristobulos, a Greek architect who travelled with Alexander and worked closely with him over many years. He also used works of Nearchus, who was Alexander’s admiral and life-long friend. Ptolemy and Aristobulos wrote their accounts independently of each other and in response to their growing dissatisfaction over the slanted, anti-Alexander stories which were being encouraged and created by Cassander in Macedonia (who had usurped the throne and had had Alexander’s mother, wife, and son murdered), as well as the Athenian educational establishment. Arrian’s writings are clear and straightforward and rely upon these very reputable primary sources which have, themselves, been lost to us. In fact, Arrian’s writings on Alexander are considered to be of such superior quality that they are the ones against which the works of the other four authors are measured by serious historians.

Of the four remaining authors, it is Plutarch who is to be preferred. However, his works are also to be used with caution. Plutarch wrote in the first century A.D. and relied on such suspect sources as letters which were supposedly written by Alexander but which, in fact, were not. Plutarch also revised his earlier work on Alexander to portray Alexander as having deteriorated later in life, which shows that he had come under the influence of the anti-Alexander propaganda. Therefore, it is necessary to be aware that Plutarch is not an unimpeachable source. He was, in fact, “…a ragbag of a biographer” who didn’t like leaving out a good story or distinguishing between primary and secondary sources.

The writings of Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin are of dubious worth. All of these authors relied upon suspect sources for their works on Alexander despite the fact that good primary sources were still available to them. Justin’s main source was a shadowy man named Trogus who had no love for Alexander. Diodorus and Curtius are, respectively, the earliest writers on Alexander, having written their accounts in the first century A.D. However, their works are riddled with inaccuracies and folk tales. Each seems to have relied a great deal on another writer whose works are largely lost to us and who was named Cleitarchus. This man was thought to have been a contemporary of Alexander and a reliable source for many years, but writers such as Cicero and Strabo believed him to be dishonest. Much of the writings about Alexander that were based on the works of Cleitarchus are no longer deemed reliable by most historians.

A consideration of the five extant ancient historians of Alexander the Great makes it quite clear that there is a tremendous amount of inconsistency in the writings about this great conqueror. It is from this confusion that all of the modern histories of Alexander have been drawn. It is no wonder that a figure about which there is such undying fascination would be subject to a new interpretation based on this same information innumerable times over the course of history. This constant re-evaluation of the same data has yielded three main portrayals of this enigmatic man.

Since the time of Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., the king has been portrayed variously as a murderous, rapacious, narcissistic megalomaniac, or as a charismatic, humanistic missionary determined to unify the races of the known world. A third common representation of Alexander’s character is that he was a good person full of promise initially, but became a corrupt, power-mad tyrant once he had crossed into the Mid-East and tasted of the riches he found there.

The depiction of Alexander as being unrelentingly awful was begun almost immediately upon his death. The Athenian educational establishment had no love for him and Cassander, his regent’s son and successor, was his life-long enemy. Together they began a very effective campaign of character assassination against the dead Alexander. This portrayal proved to be quite popular and it has continued into the present day. One of the most recent volumes written with a decidedly negative view of Alexander is that of Peter Green’s Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography. However, this book also demonstrates how far from the strictly anti-Alexander propaganda of the past modern historians have moved. It is not an indictment of the conqueror as much as it is an effort to discover the real Alexander as opposed to the near-saint described by W.W. Tarn in his groundbreaking work Alexander the Great.

W. W. Tarn began a new era of Alexander-scholarship. His work was among the first of the modern historians to re-evaluate Alexander in an effort to find the real man hidden beneath all of the propaganda and fable. His Alexander the Great lead the way in the “re-discovery” of Alexander. His work in this field has been extremely influential and helped give rise to some of the best and most thorough of the modern histories of Alexander the Great. However, despite his enormous contribution to modern Alexander-scholarship, Tarn really seems to have gone too far. He became something of an apologist, and made excuses for actions of Alexander for which Alexander himself would have been unlikely to see the need.

The final most popular depiction of Alexander is that of the good and warm-hearted king who becomes a corrupted, despotic, “oriental” tyrant. He is seen as developing into a megalomaniac who insists on godhood and casually murders good friends. This depiction shows him as an alcoholic with attacks of paranoia and depression. He is also said to have been ridiculously superstitious in his later years.

These are the three most common depictions of the character of Alexander the Great. Interestingly, each of the three schools of thought often point to many of the same episodes of Alexander’s life as proof for their respective representations of the man. An exploration of several of these defining moments is necessary to illustrate this phenomenon.

One such episode is the execution of Philotas and the subsequent assassination of Philotas’ father, the general Parmenion. The circumstances, briefly, were thus: a plot against Alexander’s life was hatched by a few obscure personages in Alexander’s court. One young man’s lover was among the would-be assassins, and attempted to recruit him for the deed. This young man flew in terror to his elder brother and they went to tell Philotas. Philotas was (as far as Alexander know) a lifelong friend and an officer in the Macedonian army. Philotas told the brothers that he would tell Alexander of the threat to him so that he could take action. However, he did no such thing despite having had many opportunities to do so over the next two days. Finally, the brothers had become almost frantic, and burst in on Alexander’s bath on the second night to tell him everything – including Philotas’ lack of action. Alexander brought Philotas up on charges of treason and the Macedonian army convicted him and sentenced him to death. This left Alexander with a terrible dilemma: Parmenion was the general who was defending the army’s lines of communication and he was also Alexander’s second-in-command. Because of the absolute reality of the Macedonian blood-feud (which would require Parmenion to try to kill Alexander over Philotas’ death), it was a practical necessity that Alexander have Parmenion killed, and it is unlikely that his fellow Macedonians would have faulted him for doing just that. In addition to this is the fact that Parmenion himself was implicated in the assassination plot. Despite all of this, Alexander still gave Parmenion anther chance at life. He sent a forged letter in Philotas’ name which indicated that the plot was going well. Upon reading this forgery, Parmenion made obvious displays of pleasure, at which time he was set-upon by the messengers and killed. In the writings of the anti-Alexander set, this entire incident is described as a gratuitous display of violence and brutality by Alexander against old and trustworthy friends. It is actually suggested that Philotas just didn’t tell Alexander about the plot due to laziness or the belief that it was just (in the words of Peter Green) “Another homosexual quarrel, with the usual bitchy accusations: obviously nothing in it.” That this was a malicious act against innocent men is unlikely. Alexander was very loyal to old friends throughout his life, and he never brought such accusations against any of his other officers. Another point which refutes the arguments of the anti-Alexander set on this subject is the fact that Alexander never seems to have felt any regret over his decision to execute Parmenion. This is odd in light of the fact that Alexander displayed a “bitter shame” over any actions he believed he had committed unjustly. Therefore, it stands to reason that the king felt entirely justified in his actions by the guilt of Philotas and his father Parmenion.

Another defining moment that has been used to serve as an example in the arguments of all three of the schools of thought on Alexander is the murder of Cleitus the Black. Cleitus was the brother of Alexander’s old nurse and one of the two commanders of the Companion Cavalry. He was one of the old-guard who had fought under Philip and who had known Alexander his whole life. At a banquet just before Cleitus was to be sent to become governor of Bacteria, disaster struck. All of the sources agree on the bare-bones of the story as follows: on the Macedonian feast-day for Dionysus, Alexander had a feast in honor of Castor and Pollux. At this feast, everyone overindulged in wine and the gathering became quite drunk. Tempers were roused when some comments were made making fun of some of the old Macedonian commanders who had not managed to successfully take a city without Alexander’s direct assistance. Cleitus became infuriated and began shouting at Alexander about his “oriental ways” and reminding him of how he (Cleitus) had saved his life at the battle of Granicus. Cleitus went on to say that Alexander was carried to success by his Macedonian troops through no contribution of his (Alexander’s) own, and that Philip had been a much greater man than Alexander. The King broke into a fury and threw an apple at Cleitus. Ptolemy pulled Cleitus from the room while several officers physically restrained Alexander. Unfortunately, Cleitus came back with a final insult and Alexander broke loose, grabbed a spear, and stabbed Cleitus through the heart. Cleitus fell dead at Alexander’s feet and the king would have killed himself with the same spear if he had not been restrained from doing so by his officers and friends.

Those who see Alexander as always having been a brutal, self-serving egomaniac and those who believe he degenerated into such a person after his success in the mid-east often point to this event as evidence for their views. This truly brutal act is held up as an example of how he had become arbitrary in his exercise of power. Alexander’s taking to his bed in a misery of self-revulsion for three days and refusing all food, drink, or comfort is seen as some sort of clever and contrived ploy to gain the army’s sympathy and forgiveness for this murder so that the officers could not mutiny.(56) However, this argument, while plausible in the face of such a brutal act, is not wholly convincing. In light of what is known of Alexander’s character, it is not really surprising that he should suffer so terribly for having committed such a cruel and ignoble act. Cleitus was an old friend and kinsman and a brother of Alexander’s beloved old nurse. When one adds to this the fact that both of the nurse’s sons had died in battle under Alexander, it becomes quite clear why he would suffer so for this awful crime of passion. In addition, as Robin Lane Fox points out in his Alexander the Great: A Biography, it would have been foolish for Alexander to retire to his tent for three days if he really believed his officers would plot against him for the murder.

This is a truly tragic moment in the history of Alexander. He committed an awful act for which he never forgave himself. For three days, Alexander lay in bed hearing from his army (which posthumously convicted Cleitus of treason) and listening to the rationalizations of his philosophers and the pronouncement of the priest of Dionysus that the god had possessed Alexander with madness to punish him for a slight on his feast day. Only after three days of these constant petitions and persuasions did Alexander finally rouse himself to begin living again. A review of this incident reveals a man who was capable of making horrendous mistakes when inebriated and in the heat of anger. It clearly shows that Alexander was not a saint as some seem to want to believe him, but it does not in any way demonstrate that he was a power-mad tyrant given to casual murder. It was a terribly unfortunate incident which could have happened to many another person under the same setting. Had Alexander truly been a murderous tyrant, it seems clear that he would have been in a position to leave the ground littered with the bodies of his companions. The case of Cleitus is used so often as an indictment of Alexander precisely because it was such an unusually vicious act for Alexander. It was the exception rather than the norm.

A third such episode involved Callisthenes, a great-nephew of Aristotle and one of Alexander’s historians. Callisthenes travelled with the army on campaign and compiled an account of the events as they went. These accounts included ridiculous claims such as that the waves along the Pamphylian coast bowed down and worshipped Alexander as he passed. This in itself was somewhat irritating to Alexander, but he paid it little attention. However, Callisthenes’ arrogance continued to grow and he loudly made the claim that Alexander would not gain glory from his own actions, but, rather, from the writings he, Callisthenes, made about the king. Callisthenes also went about camp making comments about the valor of tyrannicides and other inflammatory comments. Callisthenes then went on to undermine Alexander’s attempt to gently introduce a form of the practice of proskynesis (the eastern custom of ritual prostration before the Great King) by accusing Alexander of asking to be worshipped as a god; this was quite untrue at this time. After so many displays of his growing conceit and antagonism towards Alexander, it was not difficult for Alexander and his officers to believe the accusers of Callisthenes when they implicated him in their plot to assassinate Alexander. The would-be assassins were six of the royal squires who were responsible for, among other duties, guarding the king while he slept. There were about 50 squires and their shifts rotated nightly. On the night for which the assassination was planned, the assassins were foiled by the king’s staying up late over wine and conversation. Because of Alexander’s courtesy to them when he found them “loyally” awaiting him even though it was already morning, one of the plotters defected and the plot became known to Ptolemy. As the squires were tortured (a common practice of the time), they implicated Callisthenes by claiming that he had encouraged them in their plot.

How and why the plot developed is still debated. It is often said that it was born entirely out of the dissatisfaction of one squire, Hermolaus (a devoted pupil of Callisthenes). The school of thought which considers Alexander nearly perfect puts forth a simple motive for the plot. It is said that Hermolaus recruited his lover and four other squires for the assassination because of his humiliating disciplining by the king after a hunting incident. Callisthenes is seen as “throwing fuel on the fire” with his remarks to Hermolaus about the glory of tyrannicide. This seems a rather shaky motive for adolescent regicide. Those who wish to portray Alexander as a tyrant (either as a lifelong trait or one acquired in Asia) postulate that this humiliation was only the catalyst and that these squires were actually responding to their horror over Alexander’s tyranny, arrogance, alcoholism, and the murders of Philotas, Parmenion, and Cleitus. However, there is another view which takes into account some additional information and shows a compelling motive. Robin Lane Fox points out that Hermolaus’ father had been demoted from a high position in the cavalry a month or so before the assassination plot was hatched. Furthermore, one of the other would-be assassins had seen his father, the former Satrap of Syria, removed from his position without having it replaced by another command. All of the others had had similar experiences and this, coupled with the public humiliation of their friend Hermolaus and the imprudent words of Callisthenes, created a situation where such a plot was hatched. This final explanation certainly seems most plausible.

This leaves us with the question of Callisthenes’ involvement in the plot. The boys implicated him in their confessions, after which they were found guilty by the Macedonian army and stoned to death. It seems certain that Alexander and his officers were convinced of his guilt. Callisthenes had often shown his ill-will towards Alexander ever since the king had begun to adopt some ways of the conquered rather than just ruthlessly subjugating them. this was an affront to all of Callisthenes’ beliefs about Greek superiority, and he was not quiet about his dissatisfaction. The incident ended with Callisthenes’ death. However, how this occurred is disputed. It is agreed that he was arrested and probably tortured for a confession. Many say he was then put to death. Others state that Callisthenes could not be tried by the Macedonians because he was Greek and so he was carried around in chains with the army until he died of disease seven months after his arrest.

Whatever the form Callisthenes’ death took, he certainly got his revenge. His death brought the rage of the Athenian educational establishment down upon Alexander. The friends of Callisthenes were unaware of all the facts of the case and their resentment was to do great damage to Alexander’s reputation over time. Alexander had “…embittered the most influential body of opinion-formers in his world.” This one incident in Alexander;s career was perhaps the most damaging he had ever faced. The spewing of rage which it brought forth from the Athenian intelligentsia did enormous damage to Alexander’s image, especially after his Athenian detractors joined forces with the murderous Cassander in the year after Alexander’s untimely death in 323 B.C.

Alexander the Great is one of history’s greatest and most enduring enigmas. Every action he took for which there is some surviving account has been evaluated and then re-evaluated innumerable times. Despite a wealth of research and writings which have had him as a subject, there is still no definitive account of the man’s nature and motivations. Much of the confusion can be traced to the earliest sources and their many inadequacies. To this must be added the hostile and inaccurate accounts which were churned out by the embittered Athenian educational establishment for many years after Alexander’s death.

All of these conflicting accounts of Alexander lent themselves to the creation of any sort of characterization of the man that an author desired. However, upon a careful review of many accounts of the conqueror’s life, the evidence does not overwhelmingly support any of the three main characterizations. The two portrayals of Alexander as a butcher and megalomaniac are, indeed, the least compelling upon review. It is also unlikely in view of the research that Alexander was at all a saintly personage. However, this picture of Alexander does seem to have at least some greater merit than the other two. It is clear after a thorough study of the evidence that Alexander the Great shall remain a mystery (a fascinating one) for a very long time.

BRIANDHIKA UTAMA ^^

Here is some of facts about Alexander The Great :

·         Born around July 20, 356 B.C.

·         Son of King Philip II of Macedon and Olympias, daughter of King Neoptolemus I of Epirus. Olympias was not the only wife of Philip and there was much conflict between Alexander’s parents.

·         Tutored by Leonidas (possibly his uncle) and the great Greek philosopher Aristotle.

·         During his youth, Alexander tamed the wild horse Bucephalus. Later, when his beloved horse died, Alexander renamed a city in India for Bucephalus.

·         In 340 B.C., while father Philip went off to fight rebels, Alexander was made regent in Macedonia. During Alexander’s regency, the Maedi of northen Macedonia revolted. Alexander put down the revolt and renamed their city Alexandroupolis.

·         In 336 B.C. his father Philip was assassinated, and Alexander the Great became ruler of Macedonia.

·         Had several rivals executed in order to secure the throne.

·         Alexander the Great had three wives: Roxane, Statiera, and Parysatis.

·         Children: Herakles, son of Alexander’s mistress Barsine, and Alexander IV, son of Roxane. Both children were killed before they reached adulthood.

·         One of the legends about Alexander the Great is that when he was in Gordium, in Turkey, in 333 B.C., he undid the Gordian Knot which had been tied by the legendary King Midas. The prophecy about the Gordian knot was that the person who untied it would rule all of Asia. Alexander the Great is said to have undone the knot by slashing through it wilth a sword.

·         In 323 B.C. Alexander the Great returned to Babylonia where he became ill suddenly, and died at age 33. The cause of his death is unknown. It could have been disease or posion.

Here is some of opinion about Alexander The Great :

• Deadly agents that could have killed Alexander in one or more doses include hellebore and strychnine. In R. Lane Fox’s opinion

• Modern opinion on Alexander has run the gamut, from the notion that he believed that he was on a divinely-inspired mission to unite the human race to the view that he was a megalomaniac bent on world domination.^{[citation needed]} Such views tend to be anachronistic, and sources allow for a variety of interpretations. Much about Alexander’s personality and aims remains enigmatic: there were no disinterested commentators in his own time or soon afterwards, so all accounts ought to be read with scepticism.

• The general opinion is that the tomb could be located in the Latin Cemeteries, somewhere between the ancient Via Canopica (rediscovered by el-Falaki) and Via R1, in the modern city of Alexandria.

• This wide range of opinion can be attributed to a lack of hard facts on Alexander at any kind of a personal level. While his expansion of the Macedonian empire, military tactics, and ascension to power are well documented and not disputed, very little light is cast on Alexander as a person beyond relationships with a few close military comrades and a poorly chronicled struggle with alcoholism.

• Alexander the great was a cocky guy in my opinion

Some Habits of Alexander :

• Of course, he really like war

• He like Drinking

• He like to say to people that he is god

• He is very cruel

• He is Crazy of his won

BRIANDHIKA UTAMA “Flying Dutch Man”

Definition

A tessellation is created when a shape is repeated over and over again covering a plane without any gaps or overlaps.

Another word for a tessellation is a tiling. Read more here: What is a Tiling?

A dictionary* will tell you that the word “tessellate” means to form or arrange small squares in a checkered or mosaic pattern. The word “tessellate” is derived from the Ionic version of the Greek word “tesseres,” which in English means “four.” The first tilings were made from square tiles.

A regular polygon has 3 or 4 or 5 or more sides and angles, all equal. A regular tessellation means a tessellation made up of congruent regular polygons. [Remember: Regular means that the sides of the polygon are all the same length. Congruent means that the polygons that you put together are all the same size and shape.]

Only three regular polygons tessellate in the Euclidean plane: triangles, squares or hexagons.We can’t show the entire plane, but imagine that these are pieces taken from planes that have been tiled. Here are examples of

When you look at these three samples you can easily notice that the squares are lined up with each other while the triangles and hexagons are not. Also, if you look at 6 triangles at a time, they form a hexagon, so the tiling of triangles and the tiling of hexagons are similar and they cannot be formed by directly lining shapes up under each other – a slide (or a glide!) is involved.

You can work out the interior measure of the angles for each of these polygons:

Since the regular polygons in a tessellation must fill the plane at each vertex, the interior angle must be an exact divisor of 360 degrees. This works for the triangle, square, and hexagon, and you can show working tessellations for these figures. For all the others, the interior angles are not exact divisors of 360 degrees, and therefore those figures cannot tile the plane.

Reinforce this idea with the Regular Tessellations interactive activity:

Teacher Lesson Plan || Student Page

Naming Conventions

A tessellation of squares is named “4.4.4.4“. Here’s how: choose a vertex, and then look at one of the polygons that touches that vertex. How many sides does it have?

Since it’s a square, it has four sides, and that’s where the first “4″ comes from. Now keep going around the vertex in either direction, finding the number of sides of the polygons until you get back to the polygon you started with. How many polygons did you count?

There are four polygons, and each has four sides.

For a tessellation of regular congruent hexagons, if you choose a vertex and count the sides of the polygons that touch it, you’ll see that there are three polygons and each has six sides, so this tessellation is called “6.6.6“:

A tessellation of triangles has six polygons surrounding a vertex, and each of them has three sides: “3.3.3.3.3.3“.

Semi-regular Tessellations

You can also use a variety of regular polygons to make semi-regular tessellations. A semiregular tessellation has two properties which are:

1. It is formed by regular polygons.
2. The arrangement of polygons at every vertex point is identical.

Here are the eight semi-regular tessellations:

Interestingly there are other combinations that seem like they should tile the plane because the arrangements of the regular polygons fill the space around a point. For example:

If you try tiling the plane with these units of tessellation you will find that they cannot be extended infinitely. Fun is to try this yourself.

1. Hold down on one of the images and copy it to the clipboard.
2. Open a paint program.
3. Paste the image.
4. Now continue to paste and position and see if you can tessellate it.

There are an infinite number of tessellations that can be made of patterns that do not have the same combination of angles at every vertex point. There are also tessellations made of polygons that do not share common edges and vertices. You can learn more by following the links listed in Other Tessellation Links and Related Sites.

Michael South has contributed some thoughts to the discussion.

*Steven Schwartzman’s The Words of Mathematics (1994, The Mathematical Association of America) says:

tessellate (verb), tessellation (noun): from Latin tessera “a square tablet” or “a die used for gambling.” Latin tessera may have been borrowed from Greek tessares, meaning “four,” since a square tile has four sides. The diminutive of tessera was tessella, a small, square piece of stone or a cubical tile used in mosaics. Since a mosaic extends over a given area without leaving any region uncovered, the geometric meaning of the word tessellate is “to cover the plane with a pattern in such a way as to leave no region uncovered.” By extension, space or hyperspace may also be tessellated.

 Here is an example of tessellation of tessellation

My name is Briandhika

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
A new fuel-injection device could make all cars burn 10% less fuel — the equivalent of making a car that now gets 33 mpg get 37 mpg.

It’s simple, it’s inexpensive. It’s almost too good to be true.

Here’s how the American Chemical Society, which will publish the study in its Energy & Fuels journal in November, describes the electrorheology invention:

In the new study, Rongjia Tao and colleagues describe development and testing of a new fuel economy booster. The small device consists of an electrically charged tube that can be attached to the fuel line of a car’s engine near the fuel injector. The device creates an electric field that thins fuel, or reduces its viscosity, so that smaller droplets are injected into the engine. That leads to more efficient and cleaner combustion than a standard fuel injector, the researchers say.

In other car news, Chrysler has unveiled prototypes of an electric vehicle and two plug-in electric hybrids, one of which will be ready for sale in 2010. It’s Dodge EV could get 150-200 miles on a charge, and plug-in hybrid versions of its Jeep Wrangler and Town & Country could be the first off-road and minivans to use the technology.

Electrification of vehicles is seen as a key strategy for reducing the threat of global warming, because transportation is a big contributor to pollution, and pollutants are more easily controlled from central power plants than from dispersed vehicle fleets.

David

the legend of karimunjava island

once upon a time in muria mountain, there lived the family of sunan muria. amir hasan or called as sunan nyamplungan is the son of sunan muria.

he was very spoiled by his mother. because of that, he became a naughty boy.

then his father, sunan muria asked him to study in kudus. he studied islamic religion to his uncle, sunan kudus. after some time, he became an obedient young man. sunan muria was very proud of him.

one day, sunan muria asked amir hasan to go to somewhere to spread islamic religion. his father asked him to go to an island that could be seen from muria mountain. it was on the west – north of jepara. this island seemed to be fade (kremun-kremun in javanese). and from that time, people called the island as karimunjava island.
amir hasan followed by his mate went to karimunjava island. they sailed to the island day and night and finally they reached the island. then they did what his father said. amir hasan and his people lived in the island ever after.

Sunday, October 12/ 2008

                After go to Church, I went to “warnet” to did this homework, but I forgot to bring my book, because in that book wrote the password to enter this site. Ooo, what a damn day.. So I opened www.indonesia.faithfreedom .org to read many articles, but in the afternoon i did this in house.

Hybrid and Vehicle Systems

Hybrid and vehicle systems research provides an overarching vehicle systems perspective to the technology research and development (R&D) activities of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) vehicle research programs, and identifies major opportunities for improving vehicle efficiencies. The effort evaluates and validates the integration of technologies, provides component and vehicle benchmarking, develops and validates heavy hybrid propulsion technologies, and develops technologies to reduce the parasitic losses from heavy vehicle systems. Analytic and empirical tools are used to model and simulate potential vehicle systems, validate component performance in a systems context, benchmark emerging technology, and validate computer models. Extensive collaboration with the technology development activities is required for success. The results of hybrid and vehicle systems activities are used to estimate the national benefits and impacts of DOE-sponsored technology development, and successfully transfer developed technology to industry. A brochure about DOE’s plug-in hybrid electric vehicle research is available.

Advanced Vehicle Evaluations

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (AVTA) develops test procedures for advanced technology vehicles utilizing input from industry and other stakeholders. The AVTA then uses these procedures to accurately measure real-world performance of advanced technology vehicles. The performance and capabilities of advanced technologies for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles are benchmarked through this process to support the development of technology research and development targets for industry and DOE. The testing results also provide data for validating component, subsystem, and vehicle simulation models and hardware-in-the-loop testing. All testing results are presented in a uniform format that allows users to compare the performance of different advanced vehicles, allowing them to make educated decisions: on what areas to focus advanced research, or which vehicle to buy.

The AVTA performs three types of tests: baseline performance testing, accelerated reliability testing, and fleet testing. The type of testing used depends on the vehicle technology, the end-use application, and the needs of the testing partners.

• Baseline performance testing provides an accurate snapshot of a vehicle’s performance in a controlled test environment by using repeatable closed track and dynamometer tests.
• Accelerated reliability testing provides reliable estimates of fuel economy, operations and maintenance requirements, performance, component life, and life-cycle costs by accumulating the equivalent of several years mileage in just 12-15 months while operating on public roads.
• Fleet testing provides real-world fuel use, operations and maintenance, and cost data on advanced vehicles operated in a normal fleet application.

By : Briandhika Utama

Last year I managed to take two Paris breaks, one in April and the other in the autumn. Both times Paris was wonderful, but quite different. The chances of a bit of sunshine during a short break to Paris are very high, but even on a slightly cold and windy day, you can’t help but be enticed to go outdoors and walk alongside the Seine, through the endlessly surprising streets and squares, crossing the magnificent bridges. You can probably tell already that I love Paris.

By : David Putra

Jess stared at the sharpened pencil lying on the desk. How could she be expected to write a story about ‘connectedness’ of all things? She should be exempted from this stupid test. Didn’t they know that it was less than a week since her mum had left home, forever?

All of the class was sitting in the school hall at separate desks with separating spaces between. Rows and rows of year sevens, quiet for once except for the silent sounds of writing.

The pencil had deep tooth marks all over, wood outside, lead inside, just like her, a wooden girl with a lead heart. The class mates who sat all around her were living breathing things with real human hearts pumping real blood and oxygen through their bodies.

Jess, still staring at the wooden pencil conjured an image of trees and whole forests. The pencil sprouted large branches which filled the hall. It set down deep roots to gather water far beneath the floor. Sap travelled along its trunk. A wild luxurious growth of leaves penetrated the ceiling and the roof, taking in air and giving out precious oxygen. Jess breathed slowly and deeply.

She picked up her pencil and began to write.

By : David Putra

PERSONAL RECOUNT

It was Tuesday .I will go home from super class .the place that I study .I walked through jl. Sudirman .I waited for the bus. But where was the Ciputat bus. I have waited for the bus for about 30 minute. But it didn’t come yet. It was too boring to wait longer. I decided to take Blok-m bus. Wow the road was very busy, I wait and wait until there is no traffic jam. Then I feel sleepy so, I sleep in the bus. But when woke up it was at Melawai , I has to walk for about 45 meters to reach the terminal and took a Ciputat bus.

NARRRATIVE

Once upon a time there was a lion, his name is Bagera, He was the king of the jungle. Every one in the jungle feared him.

One day there is a wolf, he come from other jungle. He is famous for his wickedness and his fierceness. He come to challenge Bagera. Then they fought hardly until nobody want to see them. In the fight Bagera won, his opponent go back to his jungle, with several wounds.

What I Had Learned so Far

I had learned about the chicken’s wing, in that activity. I think I am showing the inquirer profile because I really wanted to know about, what’s inside it, and I pulled the skin off. Maybe I’m being a risk-taker too because I can pull off the skin, touch it, and see a bit of muscle, and others.

I also learned and tried the bone experiment and I’m showing that I am a thinker because I thought so hard and also maybe I am showing that I’m well balanced because I like to learn many new things. If the bone with salt and vinegar is black but with the water it’s red.

Lastly I learned about BMI, I showed that I’m open-minded because I listened carefully to what other people said, also I think I’m knowledgeable because I learned many things and I can tell others what I had learned, like now.

by : Ahmad Rohimawan

My Little Experience in this Holy Day

At 1st of October I went to my grandma’s house because it’s Idul Fitri Day..!! My Mom’s family is in there, expect one of my cousin (Rina) and auntie.. They didn’t came because Rina’s other grandma is blind, actually I really want her to came because she is my bestest cousin.. In Idul Fitri Day it’s a wonderful day because everyone says sorry to us.. In Idul Fitri day we also can give money to big or little kids.. My uncle (Om Madji) gave Rp.5.000 to the little kids, and Rp.10.000 to the big kids.. My mom gave Rp.50.000 to anyone that greet my grandma, even my aunties, my uncles and the nanys can greet too, because at 30th September is my grandma’s Birthday..

by : Ahmad Rohimawan