Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The reign of Alexander the Great
The reign of Alexander the Great
The reign of Alexander the Great
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The reign of Alexander the Great
This investigation attempts to answer the question “What are the similarities and differences between the leadership traits of Darius I and Alexander?” This question is important because it went on to impact the leadership of other rulers and the way that the people under their rulings lived. The issues that will be addressed are in what ways they were successful, and what their biggest failure in their power was. This investigation will focus on the time period of 550-486 and 356-323 BCE, as this is the time period of Darius I and Alexander’s lives. The places investigated will include Greece, the Persian Empire, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt because these are the central places of ruling for Darius I and Alexander. This will be accomplished through a thorough examination of what led to the fame and what led to the end of power for Alexander and Darius I by looking at biographies of both Darius I and Alexander’s lives, as well as books that are secondary sources.
Darius I lived from 550-486 BCE, and was King of Persia from 522 BCE to his death. In only one year Darius I fought nineteen battles and was able to dispatch eight men who were in line to be king. Once he became king, Darius I divided the empire into twenty sections, called satrapies, which led to better governing of the people within the empire. Also leading to improved organization of the society, Darius I started the currency of the daric. The daric system was entirely comprised of coins, which also improved trade. Prior to Darius I’s ruling, Susa, a major area for trade, was very weak. On top of inventing coinage, Darius I completely renovated this town to ensure that it would be safe against any threats and further improve trade. Darius I also ordered that cons...
... middle of paper ...
...itaries may have had to face.
Darius I and Alexander the Great are known for their success are rulers. Their leadership traits are very different but have one clear similarity. Darius I spent most of his time focusing on improving his empire internally, as shown with his major improvements with trade. He identified what needed to be improved before the empire should expand, and renovated that. Alexander the Great did the exact opposite. His main focus was on uniting and conquering the world. He wanted reign over as much land as he could conquer. Alexander was successful in maintaining a strong military and winning many battles, which led to the expansion of his empire. Both Darius I and Alexander the Great protected their own empire whenever they had to, utilizing their military. This is the main similarity in Darius I and Alexander the Great’s leadership traits.
Alexander didn’t show any of these characteristics, therefore he doesn’t deserve the title of “great”. The first reason why Alexander lll wasn’t great is because he didn’t show concern for others. In document B it states “Porus’ elephants were now boxed in, and the damage inflicted by them fell on friend no less than foe, with men trampled under as the beast twisted and turned. In document E it states “Years that it took Alexander to build his empire-11 Years that Alexander’s empire held together after his death-10” Alexander the “great” doesn’t show any intelligence because he forgot to make a will with an heir for his empire leaving it confused and aggressive because no one knew who was going to rule.
In the countries who believed Alexander was the son of the devil or the devil himself, will say he is not ‘great’ but a demon who did evil. The countries who were on his side would say he was the greatest conqueror to live. He began as a Macedonian cavalry commander at eighteen, king of Macedonia at twenty, conqueror of Persia at twenty-six and explorer of India at thirty [Foner and Garraty]. The amount of large scale accomplishments he managed to finish in a span of six years is astonishing. Alexander’s tomb was the largest tourist attraction in the ancient world. The tomb was even visited by Julius Caesar, Pompey, Caligula, and Augustus. Alexander the Great’s accomplishments set a bar in which provided a standard that all other leaders would match their careers too. Many leaders after Alexander could not reach the standard left by him [Foner and
Within 21 years of Xerxes reign to the Persian empire, Xerxes impact and legacy to is questionable from the successes and failures of: the military and administration contributions. From the use of sources such as the Harem inscription “When my father Darius went away from the throne, but the grace of Ahuramazda, I became king on my father’s throne. When I become king, I did much that was excellent. What had been built by my father, I protected, and I added other buildings” is essential and useful in assessing Xerxes’ legacy.
Alexander the Not so Great:history through Persian eyes by Prof Ali Ansari Paragraph 1 Page
Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar set the standard of what a leader should be. However, despite the two leader’s great accomplishments, Alexander the Great is a better leader. Julius Caesar fit the components of being a good leader: an ability to make a good appearance, and an ability to speak well at public gatherings. Caesar was able to change Rome. He dodged outlawing and pirates, changed the calendar and the army, and conquered the area of modern France, and much more in his six years at rule. However, Alexander the Great also held the major three components, and his achievements show that he attempted to adopt democracy. He was considered to have been the foundation of western civilization. Both leaders were betrayed, however Alexander was more betrayed for his good deeds than for his huge weaknesses unlike Caesar. Both leaders are good and influential leaders from their time, but it is Alexander the Great that is better.
Alexander was Great because of his leadership. When Alexander went into battle, he used lots of complicated strategies to win. Due to the teachings of Aristotle, he was a force to reckoned with. One example comes from Doc B.The battle was set in India, against a king named Porus. He had more than 30 elephants under his control. The one thing that separated them was a shallow river. The document tells us that he would “Take his cavalry to various positions along the river bank where he would create a clamor… This went on for quite a time until Porus no longer reacted” Alexander used great strategy to outsmart his enemy.
Few historical figures stand out in the same degree as that of Alexander the Great. He was a warrior by 16, a commander at age 18, and was crowned King of Macedon by the time he was 20 years old. He did things in his lifetime that others could only dream about. Alexander single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in just over a decade. There were many attributes that made Alexander “Great.” He was a brilliant strategist and an inspired leader; he led by example and was a conqueror at heart. In looking at his early childhood, accession to the throne, conquests, marriage, and death one can see why Alexander the Great is revered in historical contexts as one of the greatest figures of all time.
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...
Alexander the Great was only 20 years when his father Philip of Macedon died. Even though he was a young man, he had an unusual talent for politics and military tactics. After his father’s death, Alexander moved to continue Philip’s invasion of Persia. In the ten years of his war campaigns, Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world. (Judge & Langdon, 2012.)
Borza, Eugene N. "Alexander the Great: History and Cultural Politics." Journal of the Historical Society 7.4 (2007): 411-442. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 17 May 2011.
The greatest leaders in history often leave behind some sort of legacy. Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Persian Empire around 500 B.C., which was the largest empire of its time (Cyrus II, the Great). The empire stretched from ancient Iran, and grew to include an area reaching from Greece to India (Persian Empire). Cyrus’ reign saw some of the first contacts between Persia and Greece, and helped Persia gain the political power that had once been held by the people of Mesopotamia (Cyrus, the Great). Cyrus the Great proved to be an effective leader who developed a strong military that was stationed strategically throughout the empire to stop rebellions and keep trade routes safe, treated captives like the jews kindly, and implemented an organized administration of government that included satraps who governed locally.
Alexander the Great (July 356BC – June 323BC) was King of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon. By the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world. He remained undefeated in battle and is considered one of history’s most successful Military commanders. Historians’ have offered theories which could explain Alexander’s motivation to conquer so much of the known world. Some suggest that Alexander was an idealistic visionary who sought to unite the world, whereas others argued that he was a fascist whose hunger for power drove him. The Ancient Greeks were driven by love of honour (philotimaea) and their desire for greatness. They were competitive, always striving to better one another.
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 II has been considered “a great historical figure without being a great man, that what he did was more important than what he was.” ( W.E Mosse) For 26 years, Czar Alexander II ruled russia. During his reign, he made his mark on history by stepping outside of the box and going to extreme measures to help his people. He has been labeled as the “Liberator of tsar” for the ending of serfdom. Czar Alexander II of Russia has made an impact on history because of his interesting background, fatal assassination, and the changes made after his assassination.
There are many leaders in the world, but a great ruler is passionate, honorable and one who can inspire even in the most hopeless circumstances. Alexander the Great was a great ruler. Alexander the Great was a ruler that was not only inspiring, but he was fearless, smart, bold and courageous. Alexander the Great inspired his soldiers to crave more. He has inspired people since the day he started ruling. What is inspirational about Alexander the Great is that he inspired his troops to the point that they did not question him when they were outnumbered three to one in a battle, they trusted him with their lives and were willing to die for him (Alexander the Great: man behind the legend).