Julius Caesar was one of the most influential and memorable leaders in all of recorded history; he may have been the greatest man of all time. Caesars self-promotion style enabled him to have a swift rise to power; Caesar didn’t always follow the rules, and there's no denying that he left a trail of enemies in his past, but his rise to power was spectacular at that. Unlike many Roman Leaders, Caesar proved to his people that he was the best that could have been; fighting in the front lines with his army showed that he was confident as well as a great tactician. His urge for such a quick rise to power brings forth the question of whether his intentions were all for the good of Rome. It was no coincidence that Caesar ended up with the power and position, with him planning and constructing his future using his nature of a tactician for creating a tactical pathway.
His father could see that Alexander could be very influential. Being in charge of a kingdom at the age of 16 is very great. When he was 20 his father was assassinated and Alexander inherited the kingdom… and so begins the beginning of his
Abraham the father of the nation of Israel has lived such a different live than Odysseus the emblem of heroism but even though throughout Abrahams live he proves over and over again that he is also worthy of being called an Epic Hero. Every great hero is well known for his military tactics. Tactics that not just save people’s live but are genius in idea. Odysseus shows his brilliance when he saves his men from Cyclops or when he comes up with the idea of the Trojan Horse . Abraham had to save his nephew Lot, Genesis describes Abraham as “wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold”, the Bible says that he had donkeys and camel.
Even if he died at the age of 32, he had always been a successful and genius statesman, commander and contributor to the socio-cultural life rather than brutal warrior so that he became Alexander the Great. Being a successful statesman is not a surprising feature of Alexander the Great since he bound such a vast land together as an empire with his genius mind with no brutality but tolerance. Firstly, Alexander was a genius in terms of politics because his decisions which are consulted wise men or which are taken by himself was generally successful. For example, when Alexander vanquished the Persian ruler Dorius and took the Iran, the existence of Iran princes disturbed him and he was confused about whether to
He used his families charm and connections to win over the public and his fathers enormous wealth to advertise himself. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, once said, “It’s not what you are that counts, it’s what people think you are.” (9 Hostages to Fortune, 1990) He only let the public see a good, hard working American man. Many people did not know that Kennedy suffered from Addison’s disease and lived a life of pain. As a politician in his early career, Kennedy was all style. This changed however, when he became a senator.
The best example of this would probably be during the Peloponnesian war when Athens used its navy to engage in hit and run tactics against its greatest rival, Sparta (Athens: Ancient Supercity) The other ideal that the lion represents is leadership, which is best personified by Pericles, who dominated Athens during its golden age. Pericles masterminded the construction of the Parthenon and brought the arts and sciences to whole new levels during his reign. Due to these amazing feats, Pericles is known as the greatest Athenian of all time. (Athens: Ancient
They didn’t like all the vicissitude that Caesar was endeavoring to make to their country. They considered Caesar’s power as a disregard and disrespect to authority, tradition, and Roman rules. Caesar had many occasions to challenge Roman commanders and many of their opponents, which lead to many civil wars. But his decision to cross Rubicon was against the Roman law. Julius Caesar’s zeal and overconfidence that he became invincible in both Rome and battle, because his soldiers resected and doted him; he mentally conceived that he could pursue whatever he wanted.
In my own opinion Alexander does deserve his reputation because he did this mostly by himself. He conquered the entire known world, with the army that he established because he had the resources and the ideals, to be a successful leader. He managed himself in a well manner with all of his soldiers and even though all feared him, all also loved him. It is beyond me to say that Alexander does not deserve what he accomplished. Saying that he does not deserve this is as if almost to say he did not exist.
Because of those Napoleon can be seen as one of the greatest Generals that ever lived. If you look at the historical meaning, I think it it more debatable. Napoleon is without doubt one of the greatest leaders in military history, his skill as a general both tactically and strategically is without question, his rise to power astounding. Few men in history have had such an impact on world history and he easily ranks along side such leaders as Alexander the Great and Hannibal. Like those leaders he was an authoritarian leader and a dictator whose skill was matched by his ambition, one of those who did not know when the possible ended and the impossible began.
Question: To what extent were Alexander’s military successes a result of strength and skill of his army or the weaknesses of his opponents? Alexander the Great succeeded his father, Philip II of Macedon, to the throne in 336 BC after Philip was assassinated. Alexander inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. He was awarded the generalship of Greece and used this authority to launch his father's military expansion plans. From a young age Alexander started to show his leadership skills and came to command a portion of his fathers great army by the age of 15, whilst his father was away fighting.