Alexander the Great Question - help

[rinagee12]

In order to prepare for the upcoming Ancient exam I've been revisiting the intros of my past responses and trying to refine my ideas/viewpoints... If anyone could provide some feedback, particularly on how it reads, I would greatly appreciate it! 

Q. Describe the generalship of Alexander the Great. 10m.

New intro:
Alexander the Great is immortalised in history (should I say history or antiquity?) as one of the most influential military and administrative leaders of his time. Various historical sources on Alexander’s military and administrative achievements, such as his undefeated battle record and vast empire, point to his tactical, strategic and leadership skills as contributors to his excellent generalship. However, factors such as bias of historical sources and the influence of Philip of Macedon on his successes must be taken into account with any description of Alexander’s generalship, with modern scholars criticising his poor relations with his empire, increasing despotic leadership and lack of planning in leading to the disintegration of his empire following his death. Despite his failures, Alexander continues to inspire generals beyond his time, which is a testament to the successes of his generalship.

Old intro:
Alexander the Great is remembered as one of the greatest military leaders of all time due to his excellent generalship. As the heir of the Macedonian king Philip, Alexander was raised to become a leader who could conquer lands and achieve far beyond what Philip could in his time. Whilst Alexander’s tactical, strategic and leadership skills contributed to his effective generalship, as demonstrated by his ability to motivate and bring together an army for 11 years, his generalship is not without its shortfalls. Many scholars criticize Alexander for some of his choices, such as his decision to lead his army into the Gedrosian desert, ultimately weakening his soldiers on the mere assumption that there would be resources for them. It can be postulated that any description of Alexander’s generalship consists of both his successes and failures.

I'm not sure if I've actually made my introduction better/clearer! I also feel like my sentence lengths need more variation, it seems too chunky to me, but I don't know how to go about it 

[jakesilove]

In order to prepare for the upcoming Ancient exam I've been revisiting the intros of my past responses and trying to refine my ideas/viewpoints... If anyone could provide some feedback, particularly on how it reads, I would greatly appreciate it! 

Q. Describe the generalship of Alexander the Great. 10m.

New intro:
Alexander the Great is immortalised in history (should I say history or antiquity?) as one of the most influential military and administrative leaders of his time. Various historical sources on Alexander’s military and administrative achievements, such as his undefeated battle record and vast empire, point to his tactical, strategic and leadership skills as contributors to his excellent generalship. However, factors such as bias of historical sources and the influence of Philip of Macedon on his successes must be taken into account with any description of Alexander’s generalship, with modern scholars criticising his poor relations with his empire, increasing despotic leadership and lack of planning in leading to the disintegration of his empire following his death. Despite his failures, Alexander continues to inspire generals beyond his time, which is a testament to the successes of his generalship.

Old intro:
Alexander the Great is remembered as one of the greatest military leaders of all time due to his excellent generalship. As the heir of the Macedonian king Philip, Alexander was raised to become a leader who could conquer lands and achieve far beyond what Philip could in his time. Whilst Alexander’s tactical, strategic and leadership skills contributed to his effective generalship, as demonstrated by his ability to motivate and bring together an army for 11 years, his generalship is not without its shortfalls. Many scholars criticize Alexander for some of his choices, such as his decision to lead his army into the Gedrosian desert, ultimately weakening his soldiers on the mere assumption that there would be resources for them. It can be postulated that any description of Alexander’s generalship consists of both his successes and failures.

I'm not sure if I've actually made my introduction better/clearer! I also feel like my sentence lengths need more variation, it seems too chunky to me, but I don't know how to go about it 

Hey! Welcome to the forums! I'll preface my response with the fact that I didn't do Ancient History. I did Modern, and so I'm really only going to look at structure/flow/clarity rather than content. Hopefully someone else on the forum can give you a hand with the specific ideas you've discussed.

Firstly, I really like your new introduction. Your old introduction doesn't quite flow; it's an odd mix of conceptual and specific, of grand and colloquial. Your new introduction, on the other hand, is powerful. You've perfected the historical voice; certain, and yet descriptively abstract. I would change little things, however as a whole it's seriously good. Rather than 'various historical sources', just stick with 'historical sources'. Rather than 'description' of generalship, perhaps this impacts on the 'discussion' of his success/generalship. I also think that the whole sentence (containing Philip of Macedon) is a bit long, and whilst not quite rambly, is pretty close to that. Potentially you can cut it into two sentences?

My comments are only minor, because your introduction feels really really good. Let us know if you have any more questions!

Jake