There have been lots of great military commanders over the centuries, but one of the best ever and definitely the best in European history is Julius Caesar. The greatest military commander must have smart strategies and use their power to grow and conquer. On July 12 or 13, 100 B.C., in Rome, Italy, Caesar was born (Nice). Being a descendant of the Trojan Prince, Aeneas, he grew up to be full of himself (Nice). Though Caesar was egotistical, he was the greatest military commander in European history because his military IQ was astounding, he cared for and fought beside his men, and he also expanded the Roman Empire to its greatest lengths.
It is evident that Do Won Chang did not have the advantages that most successful businessmen have-- rich families, connections with other businesses, or even the opportunity to go to college. Chang’s success story negates Gladwell’s original “Matthew Effect” ideal; he endured the difficulty of starting anew in a different country while living off of minimum wage, which indicates that arbitrary factors did not play a significant role in Do Won Chang’s success. Instead, his perseverance and hard work paid off in the
They differ in the fact that they were written 800 years apart and the kings had very different leadership styles. These two kings were obviously very influential in their respective kingdoms, with King Hammurabi being the King of Babylon and King Gilgamesh being the King of Uruk. Gilgamesh is apparently an earlier ruler than Hammurabi, but they both had done magnificent accomplishments for their respective kingdoms while they were in power. It is interesting, though, that the biography of Hammurabi portrays Hammurabi as one of the greatest rulers of the ancient times with very positive reviews from its people. However, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, many of Uruk’s residents wanted Gilgamesh to leave them alone, that he wasn’t being a very good king, and that the city-state would be better off without his oppressive and tyrannical rule.
To give a brief description of his victories, he conquered areas such as Egypt and Persia. He reputably never lost a battle, and was an intimidation to others around him. His militaristic strategies and the influence of his mother helped him overcome many things. His father of course was a very important successor before his time. Philip conquered all of Greek city-states victoriously.
Compare and contrast the leadership and impact of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. Both Khan and Alexander are great leaders. They both conquered large territories and were able to guide both the leaders and the armies underneath their command. Alexander consolidated the Greeks into one empire (although being a Macedonian he was not really seen as Greek), This stopped all intestine wars among the Hellenic cities and somehow put order in the empire, transform Greece into a tremendous war machine that allowed him to conquer their eternal enemies the Persians and most of countries under their domain, reach as far as India before his death. As he was absorbed by Persian customs, and vices, most historians say he forgot his homeland, so the
However, he says little on the political platform on which Marius ran for consulship, and downplays the political acumen Marius, as a novus homo, or even if he had been nobilis, must have had to gain consulship for 6 straight years. This feat had never been accomplished in the surrounding 300 years of the Roman Republic. Plutarch makes it seem as if this was mostly luck due to the necessity of a military leader, when the unprecedented nature of the deed makes it obviously more difficult than Plutarch is willing to
The Gatsby that the world saw was a complete contrast to the real Gatsby. Outwardly he could be perceived as open and inviting whether it be because of his friendly dialect, or the fact that his parties were open to anyone who came, yet Gatsby seemed to distance himself intentionally. At his parties, he never drank and he never seemed to fully let anyone know the real him. If Gatsby was a puzzle to solve, the reader never had all of the pieces. Furthermore, the question of how he amassed such incredible wealth was never answered.
Without his leadership, the British may not have been able to conquer the French ship. Even though the British Navy was truly strong, even without the Captain, the role that he played enabled the amount of success to rise so high. This movie, which was set in 1805, clearly defined how important leadership was during this time period. 4 During the Napoleonic Wars, the French seemed to be completely dominating all others, led by Napoleon. This rising power most likely scared off and demoralized many, but the determination and bravery of some leaders proved to be a stronger force, such as the leadership of Admiral Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar.5 Evidently shown in the scenes portrayed in the movie and in the reality of history, potent leadership can overcome all odds and conquer even the most lethal of
Alexander inherited the throne that his father had controlled, at a very young age. With this inheritance, he not only had a powerful militia and backing, but he also inherited a volatile kingdom that was enduring a period of unrest.”(TotallyHistory 1). When Alexander was granted King of Macedonia and received the roll of taking the throne, he had been granted with an unassailable military, the power of being King of Macedonia and the knowledge of his father which Alexander relied on heavily. Generally speaking, Alexander the Great was a well accomplished military leader and commander but without his father's power, skills and military, Alexander wouldn’t have been as successful as he had
Mesopotamia, for thousands of years, has been the epicenter for the cyclic rise and fall of great empires throughout history. Empires would fall, only to give birth to a new, more powerful empires whose power and reach has been unprecedented. In the mid ninth century, the Assyrian Empire controlled this land under aggressive, fierce and brutal rule. The Assyrian Empire’s overly aggressive rule essentially gave birth to Persia, a secondary state in its peripheries who united through imitation, as well as through concerted resistance to their powerful primary state neighbor, the Assyrian Empire. The Assyrian Empire would soon fall to the Neo-Babylonian empire, and shortly thereafter in 539 B.C., the Persians led by Cyrus the Great would march
However just because the crusaders made no money doesn 't prove that greed didn 't inspire people to join. People buy lottery tickets all the time and many never win. Just because they don 't turn a profit doesn 't prove that they didn 't buy a ticket to make money. Also the fact that most of the army returned to Europe doesn 't prove that they didn 't desire land when joining. They may have initially wanted to gain land in the Holy Land and make a new start somewhere else.
He was elected to the senate after serving two years as the first House of Representatives member from Tennessee, and resigned after just one year. In the War of 1812, Jackson commanded American forces in the battle of New Orleans, a massive victory that took place weeks after the treaty had been signed, ending the war. This huge moral boost propelled
Since no one actually knows what happened on the Mayflower that caused it to change course, all of the conspiracy theories are simply nothing more than theories. Although they did struggle to survive when they first landed, they did not struggle as much as the Jamestown settlers who were constantly at odds with the Natives. One of the most attractive qualities about the history of the Pilgrims and Plymouth is that they eventually collaborated with the Natives, albeit a little bit longer than the history books would like to admit, but their relationship with the Natives was rocky instead of sunshine and rainbows. As far as the Pilgrims dirty little secret of grave robbing is concerned, that is nowhere near as bad as the cannibalism that took place in Jamestown. After a few omissions here and some rewriting there, the Pilgrims become the
The original colonists that arrived at Jamestowne forged a wreck in the society and a collapse in the economy. Rather than aiming their intention at actually forming a state, they hunted for wealth that was nowhere.Their misguided assumptions held on as they bounced into la la land. However, the economic boom that Virginia later experienced didn’t occur because of gold. As a result, Jamestowne settlers experimented with cultivation, vineyard, silkworms and even glassblowing. Despite their numerous attempts to establish a reliable and diverse economy, only one crop was going to build Virginia 's economy ; tobacco.
Alexander was not great I think that Alexander was not great. In my opinion Alexander was not very great at all. He may have had some pretty amazing accomplishments but that does not mean he was great at what he does or how he did it and it for sure does not mean he was a great person by any means. The evidence that I will be using is Alexander 's Empire, The Destruction of Tyre, and Alexander 's Legacy. While Alexander was building his empire he covered many lands and went through many towns and that is what this paragraph will be about.