Alexander The Great Research Paper

720 Words3 Pages
Being a good leader meant more than just ruling an empire, or telling everyone what to do. Although to be a good leader you did have to make sure you ruled the empire correctly and you told the people the right things to do, a good leader also sacrificed themselves to become the best. Good leaders do whatever they have to do, to be on top. Even though most good leaders did the same type of things to rule their empires, they also had their own personal ways on how to rule and have the best empire. Alexander the great is a good example to describe a good leader. Alexander the great was a king of the Greek kingdom, one of the best rulers to ever rule Greece. If you want to know what it means to be a good ruler in the Greek world, look at what…show more content…
A good army is what is going to make your empire stand. If you do not have a good army, then your empire is more than likely going to fail because another empire is going to come over and take it from you. Another good characteristic of being a good leader, is being a good motivational leader. Some rulers do not really have a care if their people die in an attack, but not Alexander the Great, he cared for his army and tried to show it in different ways. According to the blackboard readings over Alexander the Great, he made money awards to recognize a man’s good reputation for good service and a gold crown was given to certain officers who showed bravery towards Alexander, like saving his life. Alexander also gave a military funeral after war. Alexander was stabbed in the thigh, but that did not stop him from giving this funeral to respect the men that sacrificed their lives to save their empire. Although some rulers might not think motivating your army is a good idea,…show more content…
At one point, Rome was about to be destroyed, until they came across a farmer who saved the Roman Empire. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is the man that saved the empire. One thing different about this leader and Alexander the Great is, after Cincinnatus saved the Roman Empire, he resigned. He was the leader for fifteen days, when originally accepted it for six months. This shows that this man was not a good leader. Unlike Alexander the Great, after he won the war he resigned. He had no intention on being a leader. Another Roman world leader was Constantine the Great. His major intention was converting Rome into a Christian Empire. This is one difference between the Greek and Roman world leaders. Alexander the Great used religion to gain respect from his people. Religion was Constantine’s main focus. That is one thing that should be avoided. Although religion is important, to be a good leader in those days, you needed to focus more on your military strategies and how to make sure your empire is the best it can be. From my understanding about the readings and lectures, to be a good leader in the post- Roman world, you needed to be religious. Clovis for instance, was not a religious leader at first, but when he was about to be destroyed, he told God that if he saved them from being destroyed he would start believing in him. King Clovis’s empire did not get destroyed so he and hundreds of his army men
Open Document