Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of courage
Alexander the great conquest essay
Alexander the great influence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of courage
Why Ruthless? There are a big confusion and contradiction between the terms feared and loved when it comes to their denotation and counter impact on each other in defeating and manipulating the action of the other. When a king rules his people with love, the tension between people and spread of fear will decline. However, a prince should keep his people always and may lose his power over the people eventually. On the other hand, when a prince is feared the people’s love won’t be present. So, if a king cannot be both loved or feared, the best option to go with is to make oneself be feared because in any society there are a variety of conditions or situations that exist together …show more content…
He was a very influential and feared leader in the world at that time and he expanded his empire throughout the middle east, African and Asia. He also was a great commander who conquered and overthrew every kingdom which was around him including the Persian empire and Egyptian empire. Alexander the great was very transparent in his belief as a military commander where he takes down every region around him and put them under his rule and gets involved in every war. We can infer from this that he was a fearless warrior and he won’t let himself down for anyone who is not obeying his law and try to be independent of the empire.” According to Plutarch, among Alexander's traits were a violent temper and rash, impulsive nature, which undoubtedly contributed to some of his decisions. Although Alexander was stubborn and did not respond well to orders from his father, he was open to reasoned debate.” (Wikipedia)The stubborn behavior of Alexander the great is one of the great characters that made him successful and runs his empire peacefully. Furthermore, he ruled his empire by giving the generals some power to protect the cities he conquered. So, Alexander the great preferred fear to unite all the states around him and become one and he was able to do it …show more content…
He was a distress in ancient Rome by the people and was a terror figure. The people who were surrendered and ruled by Hannibal feared him to death that they can even think about overthrowing him from his place. “In his view armies fought until it became clear to the political leadership of the losing side there was nothing more to be gained by further combat.” (Gabriel) he is really feared by opponents and his people because of his firm position about war. This makes his people fear him a lot because he has no mercy until someone commits and surrender. Consequently, there weren’t any opposing tribes that they were under his
Many small government officials took pieces of land, changing the laws and affecting the citizens in big ways. Ten years later, the empire fell apart, leaving people with many burdens. Alexander left his empire after he died in a big mess, hoping someone could help him. This was unsmart because even though death might not be expected, it is always important to create a will with as much at stake as there was in Alexander’s situation. In summary, Alexander was not smart because he wasn’t able to think ahead to help his empire stay strong.
The son of Philip II, Alexander the Great, will become the conqueror of the western world. Alexander received the Macedonian empire when his father passed, he was only twenty at the time. As soon as he had the power of the Macedonian army, several lightning fast campaigns led them into the west and north. Next, he compelled the city-states that rebelled against the League of Corinth. This action demonstrated how Alexander punished disloyalty [Martin 244]. Alexander was able to keep his rule on the territories he conquered by rewarded the cities who recognized his powers and punished the individuals that betrayed his trust or ambitions. The power he possessed depended on his superior force and his unwillingly desire to use it [Martin 245]. The
Is it better for a ruler to be loved or feared by his subjects? Machiavelli replies that one ought to be both feared and loved but it it is difficult for the two to go together. Therefore, it is much safer to be feared more than loved. For a ruler or a government to maintain a civil orderly society fear of punishment for breaking the rules must exist or civil disobedience may occur. This is an admirable quality in a just ruler but is an abusive trait in a ruler who governs through fear alone.
Alexander the Great obviously believed his traditions and ways were the best because he saw other cultures that he conquered as backwards and wished to convert all the races and cultures in the world to his own way of thinking. The quote “[he desired to give] all the races in the world... one rule and one form of government, making all mankind a single people” could be perceived as Alexander striving for unity of the world (Plutarch, Excerpt from writings). Alexander’s idea of unity comes from the standpoint that Alexander’s way to govern a country is the best way and wanted to standardize all of the nations of the world into his narrow perspective. This small-minded view of the world does not promote knowledge and learning but instead
Alexander is now recognized as one of the greatest leaders to ever live. Alexander took the throne at the age of twenty. Alexander’s leadership is one that many leaders try to imitate. The key component in his ability to lead was having the trust of his men . His men trusted in him that he had the best interest not only for them but also for his kingdom as a whole. With this trust in place, Alexander was able to take his men into any city without. Alexander was also not shy of battles. During battles he would mostly lead from the front where he was easily recognizable and a target for the enemies . His bravery set an example for his men, and in return Alexander was always rewarded with a victory. His ruthlessness matched with his tolerance is one of the most ironic yet admirable trait he had. Alexander was known for his ruthless behavior when it came to battles with other kingdoms. He held nothing back and punished all who fought against him . That being said, Alexander rarely would hur...
loved,”. Being loved and loving can make a strong leader go soft when they need to be indomitable. Also in Source B, “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated”. Even when fear is spread throughout, rulers must show them slight empathy. Even though this seems to contradict each other the source is still stating that it is still beneficial to be aggressive.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
He was only ready to lead a military. Alexander failed to expand an empire and he fell and made his empire fall with him. Not only that, but he also ruined one of the greatest kingdoms. For all of these reasons he is a villain. He had no idea what to do with his empire. All he did know was how to lead a military. Would you really want someone who only knew how to run an army, lead you? Would you want to live in a place where you and your home doesn’t matter? That’s what would happen if Alexander was your leader. Do you really want that? We can’t let this happen to us today. People like Alexander are villains, we can’t let them ruin our culture. If we let such a villainous person be such powerful person, then history will repeat itself and we will end up just like
Alexander began his military campaign and his rule much where his father left off. Whether or not it was his aim, this created a sense of normality for the men that was part of his father’s regime. Alexander’s position as a warrior-king who stood side-by-side among his men also served to create respect among his peers. Gradually, as Alexander conquered more Persian land, he began to adopt the policies of Persian rulers. Alexander’s change in policy extended beyond just political roles, he gave consideration to the local gods in many of the lands that he conquered. Eventually, Alexander brought people in from the conquered nations to serve under him.
Alexander the Great was a terrible ruler for many reasons. When he was ruling, he went and conquered non-stop. As a result, people didn’t have a leader because he wouldn’t stick around to help lead people -- he moved on to the next civilization. According to Alexander the Great, “He moved quickly to gain control of the rest of Greece, although he was not yet 20 years old.” This proves he is a villain because he didn’t help any of his people because they had nobody to lead them. Also, according to Abc’s Study Suggests Alexander Not So Great “There is no doubt that Greek culture became deeply entrenched in the major cities under his rule, many of which he named Alexandria, but the story in the hinterlands, where "most people lived" is still unclear, Stewart says”(24). This proves he was not a leader because the place where most people lived didn’t have anything left. He could have killed the culture that was there because nothing says
To Be Feared History as revealed that power under the hands of the few has the potential to be the most destructive and also the most unifying force in the world. Many leaders have resorted to peace or fear when unable to balance the two. The option of fear is clearly the best option due to the fact that it ensures the longevity of a ruler’s reign and important relationships. Therefore, Based on the example of Antony in Julius Caesar as well as examples of many other successful leaders throughout history, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both” because fear guarantees protection of a ruler’s reign and relationships (Machiavelli 1).
According to Niccolo Machiavelli “if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved” (225). Machiavelli was the first philosopher of the Renaissance, and wrote The Prince which argued that leaders must do anything necessary to hold on to power. The main reason it is better to be feared is because men are evil, rotten and will only do things that benefit themselves. Men only think of themselves and it is for this reason fear can control them and keep them loyal to a leader. Since loyalty through love can be easily broken because it involves no punishment, loyalty through fear is the better choice because it involves the “dread of punishment, from which [the subjects] can never escape” (Machiavelli 226). Machiavelli goes on to say that the great leader Hannibal took control of his immense army, because the soldiers saw Hannibal as a fearsome and cruel person, thus, making them loyal to him. Machiavelli in addition gives an example of a leader who chose not to be feared and cruel: “Scipio, an outstanding man not only among those of his own time, but in all recorded history; yet his armies revolted in Spain, for no other reason than his excessive leniency in allowing his soldiers more freedom than military discipline permits”(226). Failure to be cruel and fearsome will cause a leader to lose control of his soldiers, and it will cause the leader’s soldiers to revolt. Hannibal was the better leader; even though he was cruel, he was more merciful in reality than Scipio because he did not allow any disorders to happen.
A ruler cannot show any weakness, or else he will no longer be feared enough to keep him in power, and he will be overthrown. In The Prince, Machiavelli asserts that it is best for a ruler to be both feared and loved, but if he cannot be both, it is much better to be feared. People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, because they fear the punishments for failure.
In The Prince, Machiavelli explains several principles for a leader to follow and establishes that is better to feared than loved if one cannot balance both. A ruler that is well-loved is not always respected and can easily lose control of his people, especially when others have devious motives. By drilling fear and avoiding hatred from one’s subjects, a leader is able to stay in power and at the same time still have the respect of his people. As a leader there will always be adversities, and doing what is best for the state of affairs should always come first. There is nothing worse than obtaining the detestation of the people, and ultimately losing control of power. When it comes to leadership, one was must be feared, but also gain the respect of those around him. When a ruler is worried about their constituents, this allows vulnerability to seep in and control their thoughts. An individual in power does not need love to oversee and direct others, however, there is nothing wrong with being admired and respected as a leader.
As a ruler, Alexander the Great had aspirations to stretch his empire from coast to coast through a variety of measures. Those tactics included military action as well as conveying his terms and allowing people to accept them and surrender to him. His malleability came into play when the places he sought to conquer did not accept to his terms. This can be seen when Alexander and his army were fighting to overrun the Persian Army. After being informed of another route by a captive, “the king and his tropes filed down into the gorge to arrive behind the Persian lines”. This was a different tactic of war that the Persian had never seen because no one was able to find the alternative route. Due to Alexander’s quick thinking and ability to adapt to the place where he was fighting, the Macedonian army gained the upper hand over the Persians. His malleability can also be seen in the battle of the Elephants where Alexander was put up against a strategy he had never faced prior to the battle in 326 BCE. Alexander did a good job of counteracting what the Indian army felt would be an unbeatable force. He “planned to restrict the creatures’ space as much as possible, forcing back the Indian cavalry”. His ability to think fast and change his army’s attack plans helped the Macedonian army come out of battle successful, not only in the