By the time Alexander was 18 years old fought with his father, controlling the left wing of the army during the battle at Chaeronea. After the death of his father, Alexander became king of Macedon at the age of 20. Alexander wanted more power than just his own little kingdom of Macedon, he wanted the Persian Empire. In 335 BC Alexander marched his army from the South of the Persian Empire and conquered away. Many cities surrendered when they saw him
What do the sources tell us about the battles of Artemisium and Thermopylae and who the real victors were? Xerxes, son of Darius and King of Persia, at the head of an army that was “far greater than any of which we know” (H.7.20) began his march on Europe with intention and entire conviction of conquering the continent, and in particular the collective states of Greece. First it is important to note the sheer scale of Xerxes invasion. Herodotus says it was so vast that “there was not a stream his army drank from that was not drunk dry” (H.7.20) and that the King had spent five years building this military, taking the finest infantry, navy and cavalry from every nation in Asia. After accounting for all for each military division, Herodotus comes to the conclusion that Xerxes reached Thermopylae at the head of an army consisting of 5,283,220 men.
Sandra Quinones HIS 103 World Civilizations I Instructor: Pamela Huckins Wednesday, August 01, 2012 There were many things that the Roman Empire had from ambition to lust and even murder. But the one thing that had set Rome apart from any other cities was its technology and engineering, and the technology that the Romans had achieved with the building of huge buildings, stadiums and roads and aqueducts made the Roman Empire one of the most power nations in the world. As early as 44 B.C when the most powerful roman of all was found dead on the senate floor murdered by his own people, Julius Cesar had engineered a rise to power that would never be challenged. The one thing that Julius Cesar wanted to do, that no other person had ever done
With special reference to the battles of Issus and Gaugamela, to what extent does Alexander’s generalship deserve the praise which Arrian gives? Alexander III of Macedonia is one of the most celebrated military commanders to have ever lived, conquering most of the known world despite the fact he only ruled for twelve years and eight months. Arrian, a man who produced what is widely considered to be the fullest account of Alexander’s campaigns (although not without fault in the minds of some historians) known as the ‘Campaigns of Alexander’ or ‘Anabasis’, over 400 years after his death, writes: ‘In arming and equipping troops and in his military dispositions he was always masterly. Noble indeed was his power of inspiring men…..and…of sweeping away their fear by the spectacle of his own fearlessness….his ability to seize the moment for a swift blow, before his enemy had any suspicion of what was coming, was beyond praise.’ (Arrian, 7, 29) Arrian is certainly well placed to deal with Alexander’s military achievements and abilities having himself been a member of the Roman army, while he also had access to the first hand accounts of two of Alexander’s leading officers, Aristoboulus and Ptolemy. Alexander, most commonly known as ‘Alexander the Great’, such were the extent of his conquests, was also something of a mythical figure, with many people believing him to be of a divine nature (including Arrian and Alexander himself) – could this have clouded Arrian’s judgement with regards to the extent of the praise he bestows upon the subject of his study?
Extraordinary Abilities of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar History has given us a long list of heroes and idols but the two that stand out amongst all are Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. These two men led monumental lives and set the benchmark of greatness against which succeeding rulers are measured. Alexander, son of King Philip II of Macedon, extended his empire across three continents and achieved glory and fame beyond imagination. Caesar climbed the ladder to political success and transformed the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. Although both Alexander and Caesar developed leadership qualities at an early age and claimed responsibilities very soon in their lives, they differed in what led to the development of these abilities and how the outcome of these abilities contributed to their legendary status in this generation.
Alexander started his campaign for the world with 37,000 men, 5,000 of which were cavalry. The king pushed east towards Asia Minor in 334 BCE and had the first confrontation and victory against the Persian Empire at The Battle at Granicus River. By 333 BCE, the western half of Asia Minor was controlled by Alexander. At the Battle of Issus, the Persians outnumbered Alexander and his men. The numerical advantage the Persian’s had was cancelled out because the battle was on a narrow piece of land.
Dear Committee, Julius Caesar is usually credited for bringing down the Roman Republic, but it was Augustus who proclaimed the republic to be brought down. And although he did rule as an absolute ruler, and may even be considered a tyrant in his final years, he set precedents for other rulers in Rome, as well as expanding the empire to its height in some places, and even used some republican ideals throughout most of his reign. In that, he would deserve a place in the Roman emperor hall of fame. One factor that really set himself a part in the Roman emperor hall of fame is his several conquests that put the Roman empire at it’s greatest extent in some places. “He conquered Egypt during the early years of his reign, kept his armies busy in northern Spain, expanded across the Rhine river, and even conquered land along the banks of the Danube river.
Julius Caesar was one of the most brilliant figures in all of history, particularly in the long history of Rome. His accomplishments were so significant that “The German ‘kaiser’ and the Russian ‘czar’ [are both] derivatives of Caesar” (Source 1). Caesar was an extraordinary military leader, vastly expanding Rome’s lands. He was a very intelligent man, and when he became dictator, made many important political and social reforms for the good of Rome. Caesar’s military prowess and his reforms crafted him into the extraordinary person that historians all recognize as great.
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.