Glory was a value inherent to Roman society. Plutarch expertly compared Caesar to Alexander in Lives through their respective quests for glory. Caesar was driven to conquer new lands in his pursuit for glory: “Caesar had long ago resolved upon . . . to make himself the greatest man in Rome . . . Caesar had entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals, and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his soldiery, and had heightened his own glory” (Lives). This drive for war and conquest in the name of glory was a very Roman attribute that Plutarch’s audience respected. Plutarch further caters to his audience by drawing parallels between Caesar and Alexander’s …show more content…
"Do you think," said he, ‘I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable’” (Lives). Caesar’s desire for glory parallels the desire and actions of Alexander the Great. The Romans loved to read about glorious acts of their empire, and they undoubtedly enjoyed the comparison of Julius Caesar’s glory to that of Alexander the Great, one of the world’s greatest conquerors. Plutarch says that Alexander, as a young man, “was extremely eager and vehement, and in his love of glory, and the pursuit of it, he showed a solidity of high spirit and magnanimity far above his age” (Lives). Desire for glory was innate to Alexander as it was to Caesar. Alexander valued it above all else, and as a child he frequently bemoaned his father’s success, “Whenever he heard Philip had taken any town of importance, or won any signal victory, instead of rejoicing at it altogether, he would tell his companions that his father would anticipate everything, and leave him and them no opportunities of performing great and illustrious
Caesar was a great military leader, he was a man of strength, and he conquered all of Rome. Caesar was not afraid to take charge to take Rome high and make them more powerful. If he had to Caesar would kill anyone that stood in his way of making Rome more powerful. “Kill everyone inside” “without hesitation, his men, swords drown, burst inside the bar, and soon the street was quiet.”
Madelyn Youtsey Mr... Caros/Mr. Bishop Western Civ. I/Composition 31 March 2023 The Legacy and Military Prowess of Alexander the Great Many conquerors have earned kleos, have built magnanimous empires, and had their name carved into stone like Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon but one of the most famous and influential conquerors was Alexander the Great.
(Doc. B). This empire had not messed with him or affected him conquering land, but Alexander saw an opportunity and jumped at it first chance he saw. Alexander did not think about the negative affect that was created by him conquering all this land, he just saw the opportunity to become more powerful, and make his empire one of the biggest. He wanted to set a legacy for himself, and did not care about how everyone else was
Instead of letting the women be enslaved and left to the whims of his men, Alexander is shown to have treated them with honor, respect and generosity. He does not treat them like prisoners, but like guests of honor in his camp. Plutarch uses this situation to show Alexander’s compassion and his rationality and sense of justice when it comes to protecting those under his domain. Another example is Alexander’s policy of letting his conquered territories to govern themselves independently and not robbing them of their freedom. Through these merciful and honorable acts of Alexander, Plutarch manages to highlight Alexander’s greatest traits as leader as an individual, and simultaneously support his argument that Alexander is inherently good and exceptional among
Alexandria is considered to be the best example of ALexander's successful spreading of Greek Culture. Alexander may have been somewhat known as a big-headed, narcissistic leader, so much so as to going as far as to say that he was the son of Zeus, the King of the Gods. But Alexander truly did deserve the title of “The Great”. To be great in history is not to be a nice, sweet person who is kind to everyone, but to be a smart ruler who knows what he wants and gets what he wants. To be great in history is a title that comes with a lot of speculation, but
I focus on the challenge that his father Phillip left him. "Philip and his friends looked on at first in silence and anxiety for the result, till seeing him turn at the end of his career, and come back rejoicing and triumphing for what he had performed, they all burst out into acclamations of applause; and his father shedding tears, it is said, for joy, kissed him as he came down from his horse, and in his transport said, 'O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee' " (Alex. 6.8.). He was lead to believe that the cause of His life was to be the greatest leader and conqueror of all time. Alexander the Great's legacy is both far reaching and profound.
The conquests of Alexander the Great during the 4th century BC undoubtedly transformed the ancient world, bringing people of foreign lands into contact with Greek ideals and customs that spawned a unique Hellenistic period of both decaying and generative traditions. Despite the historical dramatization of Alexander, emphasizing his charisma and intellect as being the driving forces in creating an empire of a size that had never been imagined before, the contexts of cultural tension between Greek and Persian societies, a fractious Greek political state, and civil strife from an overpopulated Greek world greatly supplemented Alexander’s inherent traits in clearing a path for him to rise and embark on a path of conquest in the pursuit of eternal
This paper will show you how Julius Caesar became the man he was and the pros and cons of his leadership. Before Caesar’s monarchy, he was a successful leader of armies. His victories in the Gallic wars only heightened his want for power. By 51 B.C. Julius’ ability to run a military was incomparable, which alone jeopardized Pompey’s leading. Thus, in 50 B.C. Pompey ordered Caesar to disband his army, step down from his military command, and return to Rome.
Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were two highly important men in the history of the world. In Greek and Roman Lives, the historian Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, better known as just Plutarch, wrote about the lives of these two great men. He wrote of how their surroundings and the people around them influenced them, and how that affected their success in their plans to reach some form of eternal glory in their desire to become greater than those who came before them. They were both extremely ambitious, quick to fight, and careless of danger on the path to glory.
Julius Caesar was the Dictator of Rome in 42 BC who accomplished many things. Many people believed that he was a hero, but Julius Caesar was a very ambitious dictator and was more of a villain than a hero. Julius Caesar was a villain because he didn’t think first before doing something, he forced the Senate to name him dictator for life and he also was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. To begin with, Julius Caesar was a was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. Caesar used his power as dictator more towards his advantage instead of helping the people in Rome.
Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Empire dominated the ancient world from 336 to 323 B.C. through military force and cultural exchange. The army of Macedonia had achieved an abundance of success due to Alexander's ability to provide his militaries with the best weapons, instill the training needed to perform battle formations and endure battle as well as the attitude needed to overcome adversity such as being outnumbered by the Persians. Despite conquering various lands, Alexander the Great chose not to impose his rule, but rather embrace certain customs, in order to spread Hellenism and eliminate the perception of being foreign; the process of unification impacted western civilization by mixing the people of Macedonia with other conquered
In order to galvanize a large army, a leader must primarily be passionate and convinced in himself. These attributes surely describe Alexander the Great adequately. During
Charlemagne gave Carolingians a cultural reform by bringing unity in Western Empire. He brought stability in Europe and united France that made him the “Patron of Rome, Guardian of Roman church, and defender of the faith.” Both Alexander the Great and Charlemagne brought change to their country and honor to their countrymen. But it was the demonstration of their military superiority and skillful tactics and strategies that one of them truly deserve the title of “the Great.” Alexander’s leadership skills became apparent when he defeated the Maedi when he was only sixteen.
In the opening lines of chapter XXI(20), Machiavelli states, "Nothing brings more prestige than great campaigns and striking demonstrations of his personal abilities". Starting with great campaigns, two rulers who had stellar campaigns are Ferdinand of Aragon and Alexander the Great. Not many can share such success in a campaign like these two greats had. Ferdinand skillfully used the military he had to attack France, Italy and more. He won with a reputation of being a man with outstanding ability.
He was always courageous and persistent in battle, which made many individuals admire him. Similarly, Julius Caesar was a leader of Ancient Rome. In the beginning of Caesar’s reign, he