Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Alexander the Great Conquest of Persia
Alexander the great influence on Persia
Conquests of Alexander the Great
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Alexander the Great Conquest of Persia
There are many qualities one requires to be a successful General, they can be divided into two categories as I see it: those of character, that is, personal leadership, and those of professional and tactical capacity. When it comes to command in the field, the first category is slightly more important than the second, although it is useless, of course, if separated from the second, and vice versa. Alexander III of Macedon and Hannibal of Carthage are considered among the greatest generals to have ever lived. Alexander's legendary feats and his ability to grasp the strategic and tactical situation are absolutely worth studying for all military leaders in learning the art of war. What he was able to accomplish before he was thirty-three years old is nothing short of a Herculean effort, very much similar to his own hero, Achilles, from Homer's Iliad. Alexander had founded some 70 cities, many bearing his name, both as strongholds and cultural and trade centers, thereby spreading Greek ideals and knowledge eastward as far as China. When Rome gained control of the Hellenistic world after 190 B.C.E., Greek culture rapidly infused that of Rome, and together they formed the basis of modern western culture. Alexander deployed the new technologies and equipment to perfection. He almost always scouted his enemies and their terrain before moving against them to avoid getting caught by surprise or at a disadvantage. Alexander also put himself at the center of each skirmish, where he could do the most damage and assume the most risk. His armies moved swiftly, sometimes suddenly appearing in places he was thought unable to reach, and with their reputation for ferocity they often were able to demoralize or scare opposing armies into scattering ... ... middle of paper ... ...onomic instruments of power in coordination with military force to achieve his objectives. In the same vein, when examining the transcendent military genius of Hannibal, there cannot be two opinions. He occupied hostile lands for fifteen years against a plethora of armies and their respective generals. Wonderful as his achievements were, we must also consider the lack of support that he received from Carthage. There is no way to properly compare the Generalships of Alexander and Hannibal due to not only the different enemies, Alexander fought a Persian Empire in its waning hour whereas Hannibal fought Scipio as Rome was reaching the height of her power, but also completely different styles of stratagem. What we can say is that both Generals were brutally effective and during their prime commanded among the deadliest fighting machines the Mediterranean had ever seen.
Introduction. Common Attributes of military leaders are just that, common. The accomplished Generals, Colonels and Majors that contributed to the most successful wars of our country have been molded a certain way. They are molded through vigorous training both in scholastic training and in the field along with rigorous mentorship. Colonel Lewis McBride was a rare exception to the rule. As a renowned Chemical museum curator so distinctively puts it, he was, without a doubt, one of the most interesting and industrious officers in the history of the US Army Chemical Corps.
Hannibal is, perhaps, most notable for moving from Iberia over the Pyrenees, across the Alps and into northern Italy with an estimated army of 38,000 soldiers and war elephants braving the harsh climate and terrain, the guerilla tactics of the native tribes and commanding an extremely lingual-diverse army. He was a distinguished tactician, able to determine his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and coordinate his battles accordingly. He also wasn’t above making allies when the time called for it, winning over many allies of Rome in the process during his 15-year invasion before a Roman counter-invasion of North Africa forced ...
Hannibal proved to be an excellent leader. He had the support of both his troops and of the government above him. This was ...
According to Lazenby, to do. What Hannibal did required "great strategic skill, tactical ingenuity. and sheer force of personality"[3]. I will consider where these characteristics came from and how he used these characteristics to his advantage in the Second Punic War. After Hasdrubal was assassinated, Hannibal became general of the Carthaginian army in Spain.
Imagine a general of immense wealth, integrity, and great perverseness. This description fits a certain person well: Pericles. Pericles was a brave man, and he did things to the best of his abilities. He was born a wealthy child, and of course used this to his advantage. He honestly thought that he could have a big impact on the city of Athens and maybe even the entire world. He have thought this way because, “His father Xanthippus had himself been a military commander for Athens at the battle of Mycale in 479 B.C. Pericles name in Greek means 'Surrounded by Glory' and as is evident that was certainly to come true for Pericles was he became an influential statesman for Athens during The Peloponnesian War until his death in 429B.C.” (Rodney) From this, people assume that Pericles was a commander at heart and a fantastic man in general. Pericles was a great man because he was a risk-taker, a leader, and possessed extreme intelligence in battle. These are all incredible attributes to being an marvelous person and Pericles definitely fit all of them, making him a prodigious general to have in a city.
One of the greatest generals of World War II, George C. Patton was the only true general feared by the Axis forces due to his charisma, bravery, and brilliance. Grown up in a proper episcopalian family Patton grew with many challenges such as dyslexia but soon his interest in military overcame him and he went to the best military school in America. Patton soon fought many wars and his experience made him the man he was. Born with an instinct that only a few generals had he was able to predict where the battle would be fought and when. Hated and admired it is without a doubt said that Patton was one of the greatest military generals of the era..
Although several people may disagree, these achievements and intelligence lead to great success. For example, against Porus and his army, Alexander puzzled the elephants causing them to stampede and kill Porus’s army. Also, in eleven years Alexander conquered 2,200,000 square miles of land at the age of twenty. Nobody can do this any day and Alexander showed his ability to persevere through tough times. Ultimately, when thinking of great names in history, remember Alexander the Great and all his great accomplishments because nobody has been able to conquer so much land in such a short amount of time with little rest and so much confidence in any
...than Julius Caesar. The two leaders were very good and powerful leaders of their time and place; it is just Alexander the Great’s rule that stands out the most as being more successful.
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.
Alexander the Great is hailed, by most historians, as “The Great Conqueror” of the world in the days of ancient Mesopotamia. “Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BCE. His parents were Philip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and Alexander inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom. He quickly dealt with his enemies at home and reasserted Macedonian power within Greece. He then set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire” (Web, BBC History). It is important to note, which will maybe explain his brutal actions, that Alexander was only twenty years old when he became the king of Macedonia. “When he was 13, Philip hired the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be Alexander’s personal tutor. During the next three years Aristotle gave Alexander training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy, all of which became of importance in Alexander’s later life” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). “In, 340, when Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and invaded Thrace, he left his 16 years old son with the power to rule Macedonia in his absence as regent, but as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled and posed a danger to the country. Alexander assembled an army, led it against the rebels, and with swift action defeated the Maedi, captured their stronghold, and renamed it after himself to Alexandropolis. Two years later in 338 BC, Philip gave his son a commanding post among the senior gener...
Hannibal, a Carthaginian general and one of the greatest generals that ever lived was renown for his strategies and courageousness, such as crossing the Alps and using the "bottleneck strategy" at Lake Trasemene. He used strategies that a lot of generals at this time, especially Roman generals, would never think of and in doing this he almost destroyed the Roman republic.
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...
The Army leader should have identifiable features that soldiers can benefit from. This is how an Army leader must be. He or she should have knowledge in tactics and techniques that show that they can manage resources and organize. All of this entails what an Army leader knows. And the actions that birth the feelings in other soldiers to want to operate in the same manner of that leader is the do.
Pyrrhus’s skill as a general and his books on the art of war influenced many generals who came after him, including Hannibal. Plutarch wrote that “the other kings… represented Alexander with their purple robes, their body-guards, the inclination of their necks, and their louder tones in conversation; but Pyrrhus alone, in arms and action.” (3) What Pyrrhus lacked as a king he made up for on the battlefield. He will always be remembered for his bravery as a soldier and his brilliance as a commander.
Alexander inherited an impressive military from his father and a stable kingdom; he also followed his father’s plans to invade Asia. Does this detract from his own accomplishments with the Macedonian army? I would argue that it does not. It does not matter how large his or how well trained his standing army had been, there can be no success without some form of military leadership.