The Differences Between Alexander the Great and Napoleon - Essay Example

The differences between Alexander the Great and Napoleon Both men were great heroes (or beasts), both led armies to great success, and both, it seems, were quite vertically challenged. While Alexander the Great (or King Alexander of Macedon) lived and ruled around 356 to 325 B.C, Napoleon Bonaparte could be considered modern, living from 1769 to 1821. Both were warriors, and both led troops to battle. Both are considered among the top ten military leaders and rules of all time. During their peaks, they controlled more land than most people ever will, and ran their armies with skill and ease. Both died strangely, Alexander of a fever (or a rock to the back of the head, or possibly poison), and Napoleon must likely of stomach cancer, although there is much speculation that he was murdered with arsenic. Either way, they were both men of great power. By comparing their differences in personality and ambition, it becomes clear what traits are dominant among those who wish to lead and rule, and what traits are merely quirks of the person. Alexander the third, more commonly known as Alexander the Great of Macedonia, was not the first in his family to be a warrior. His father, King Philip the second had also been a great warrior, bringing together the country of Macedonia. (Brown). For him, conquest was inevitable, as was the taming of his great horse, Bucephalus. Believing himself to be one of the Gods, Alexander took over his father’s empire at the age of twenty, when his father was killed. Alexander won conquest after conquest, eventually being named Pharaoh of Egypt. (Brown). Yet as he pushed his men on, they grew resentful, and eventually refused to continue. It was not long after that he because very ill, and died. For Alexander, his ambitions were actually small, but they took on a large meaning. At the time, to be truly the best was to be Greek. Yet he was from Macedonia, a land the Greeks despised. At one time Demosthenes dismissed Alexander’s father by saying “not only not a Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from a land worth mentioning.” (Rowell) Because he was rejected from society, Alexander took by force the land and power necessary to become someone great, and indeed, near the end of his conquests he was called the “Lord of Asia” and had conquered many countries. His motivations and ambitions were clear, wealth, fame, power. He also wanted to finish the work of is father, and destroy the Persians, whom the Macedonians thought to be horrible, filthy people. As for his personality, there is much to be seen in some of his earliest moves and actions. Bucephalus, his horse, was tamed by him at the age of twelve, when no other man could tame him. Not only was his intelligence clear, but also his sheer determination. When none of the king’s men could tame the horse, Alexander said that he could or would pay the cost of the horse. Easily, he noticed that the horse was not unwilling, but his own shadow was scaring him. Turning him into the sun, Alexander easily tamed and rode the horse. It was at this point that his father told him “Oh my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.” (Lamb) The death of his horse some eighteen years later was tragic to Alexander, and he buried his horse in a tomb near a town he named Bucephala, to honor his horse. His kindness to his animals was important; as was his kindness to the people he conquered. Although, like others, he sold women and children into slavery, he was remarkably good to those who did not oppose his rule, and did not rape and murder the women, as other leaders might have. He wanted power, but in many ways, it is clear that he also wanted respect. His intelligence is also clear in his ability to understand and learn from Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers in history. One of the greatest descriptions of Alexander ever given was by a man named Arrian of Nicodemia, one of his soldiers; He was the most handsome of men, the greatest lover of hardship, the most brilliant in judgment. He was also the bravest, most in love with honor and danger, and most pious in observing his religious duties. Altogether disciplined in pleasures of the flesh, he was avid for delights of the mind. (Panagiotis) Alexander was a kind, hard working intelligent man, who wanted to succeed for his people, but also to achieve fame. Napoleon, on the other hand, was not nearly the same kind hearted leader that Alexander the Great was. Bonaparte was not born French, but was sold there as a small child by Italy. He attended French schools, and eventually the French military school, although he never truly mastered the French language. Despite his lack of ability to master language, Napoleon had a firm respect for knowledge and what it could give him. Before battle, he had a librarian bring him books that related to the country he was going to fight, so that he could study and learn as much about them as possible. (Librarianship). His ambitions were uite different than those of Alexander the Great, while Alexander had hoped to take over the world, Bonaparte worked hard to protect France, and limit fighting with countries nearby. However, records of Napoleon also vary in quality and in understanding. Some suggest that he was a ruthless war monger, who only wanted to fight, and blame him for the “Napoleonic wars” of modernity, others suggest that he was ruthless, cruel and mean, and only wanted to succeed for himself, and not France, and still others suggest he was a brilliant leader, determined to protect his country, and it is his success that makes people doubt his genuine desire to save France. What is clear, is that he held a lot of ambition. From very young, Napoleon insisted that he wanted to be a soldier. He read war histories, and accounts of soldiers and wars every chance that he could. He eventually attended a French military academy, and moved quickly up through the ranks, becoming one of the top soldiers in the French army. Time and again they battled, and with Napoleon leading, time and again they won. He is probably know best for his battle at Austerlitz (not to be confused with Aushwitz, a Nazi concentration camp), in which he fought two other emperors, although the one he primarily fought was Tsar Alexander of Russia, who controlled five sixth of the soldiers at the battle. There is much amazement that Napoleon was able to win that battle. (Adams) While a strong believer in government created for the people, he did not see it reasonable that the government be run by the people. As a ruler, he kept France under tight police rule, limiting his people’s freedoms. While dictator-like in action, Napoleon is also given credit for the vast number of changes to the French laws and public codes, almost all of which were for the better of the people. Personality wise, the views of Napoleon are again a vast range, and there is no overwhelming evidence that he was either good or evil. He was married twice, first to Josephine, and then to Marie-Louise, both of France. He was known to be a genius and a risk-taker, an avid gambler who enjoyed the pleasures of the flesh and spoils of gaming. Many considered him to be very impatient, and planned over the short term and not the long term. He was known to quickly change his mind, not only about strategy, but about which country they were going to invade. This ambiguity could easily have weakened his army, and he was indeed lucky it was not his downfall. The French revolution in many ways was not a safe time to be a Frenchman. Considered a hero for his actions in war and defending the people, he spent nay years away in Corsica, leading his troops by letter. He was convicted of treason when the tide of the revolution changed, and managed to be saved by a friend, who was to become one of the ‘directors’ of France. He was then again a military hero, after defending the people’s rights against other countries invasions. He at one point decimated his troops, taking over 400,000 men to battle with Russia, and returning with scarcely 10,000. Paris was captured, and he was exiled. However, despite his downfall, Napoleon was still able to return once more and return to rule, reigning for six years until the power of the British army brought his downfall at the legendary Waterloo. (Wilde 2003) To be so remarkably successful, Napoleon had to have some form of principals or keys that he used time and again in battle. Indeed, Jerry Manas, a Napoleonic scholar, suggests that Napoleon had six principles which he took with him to every battle. Napoleon believed in exactitude, speed, flexibility, simplicity, character, and moral force. By exactitude, he means careful foresight and research into what he was doing. By speed, exactly that, to quickly execute any planned action. By flexibility, that all plans must be adaptable to the current situation. By simplicity, not focusing on complicated maneuvers or goals, but focusing on the most basic task at hand: winning. By character, having as much personal understanding and awareness as intelligence, and by being calm, focused, and understanding personal responsibility to both soldiers and country. And finally, by moral force, the belief that people will do their best work if they truly believe that what they are doing is right. (Manas) For Napoleon, as long as all six principles were at play, then he believed that they would be successful. In comparing the two leaders, it is clear that they were in many ways quite similar. Both could be kind, although showed the characteristic roughness of a dictator and conqueror. Both were considered of above average intelligence, and were able to use this intelligence to lead their troops successfully. Both were passionate about what they did, and worked hard to overcome challenges (height, age, nationality). Yet for Alexander, much of his work was already done, while for Napoleon, it was barely started. Alexander was born into leadership, and lived with the ruler for whom he would eventually take over. His leadership was not questioned, while Napoleon had to start from the bottom, and work his way up. What they did both have in common was a strong sense of being the underdog. Despite Alexander’s favor, he wanted to be respected by the Greeks, which, because of his origin, was nearly impossible. This need for respect is what catapulted him to such great military heights, and made him work so hard to be successful. For Napoleon, being of foreign birth, he had to prove to not only love and care about France, but also that he was worthy of being one of the top military leaders of such a gat country. He had no claim to greatness, and had to struggle his way to the top of the military ladder. Both men also achieved greatness in world conquer, although Alexander went far further than Napoleon, conquering hundreds of thousands of people, and making Macedonia a power state, at least during his life. Finally, they both died in inauspicious ways, leading people to question whether their deaths were truly acts of nature, or were murder. In this essay, it has become clear that while Napoleon and Alexander the Great lived at very different times, and had very different beginnings, they were very similar people. Both were short in stature, but were exceptionally intelligent. Both led their troops to unheard of success, and often against the least likely odds. Both were military genius, which gave way to a sense of invincibility, and an lack of willingness to stop, even when there was no chance of further success. For Alexander, everything ended when his troops said no more. For Napoleon, it was the famed battle of Waterloo that brought his success to an end. Neither, amazingly, died in combat, and neither was happy to give up their rule. Like all great conquestors, they were unable to see that fame and fortune had blinded them and their intelligence, and that they could no longer continue on the path they had created. It was over. Works Cited (1979).Little lessons from library history. Journal of Academic Librarians. 4, 442. This article looks in brief at Napoleon’s dependence on libraries and librarians in learning about other countries. Adams, M. (2005). AUSTERLITZ. History Today, 55(12), 30-36. This article looks at the battle of Austerlitz, and its’ effect on Russia and France, and on the eventual downfall of Napoleon. ALEXANDER THE GREAT'S EMPIRE. (2005). Junior Scholastic. This article is a brief history and biography of Alexander the Great, and the country of Macedonia. HISTORY LESSONS: THINK BIG: ALEXANDER THE GREAT. (2005). Management Today, 3-8. This article reviews how Alexander the Great came into power, why he chose the battles that he did, and the cause of his eventual death. Lamb, R. (2005). Alexander The Great and Bucephalus. Horse & Rider, 44(6), 19-19. This article looks at Alexander and his horse, Bucephalus, and why and how Alexander gained his horse, and the eventual story of Bucephalus’s death and burial. Manas, J. (2006). Six Winning Principles. Leadership Excellence, 23(4), 15-15. This article looks at the six principles that Napoleon insisted would win any war, and how they are still useful in modernity. Rowell, B. (2005). Global Time Line: Alexander the Myth. Mekeel's & Stamps Magazine, 197(10), 19-19. This article looks at the history of Alexander the Great, and attempts to determine what is fact and what is merely myth. The author believes a great deal of the legend is indeed myth. Rowell, B. (2006). Global Time Line: Looking to the East. Mekeel's & Stamps Magazine, 198(13), 21-21. The article looks at Napoleon Bonaparte and his role in the revolution and changing of France. Wilde, R (2003). Napoleon Bonaparte. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from About.com Web site: http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/readyref/blpersonnapoleonbonaparte.htm The author reviews a brief history of Napolen, his biography, and the major battles that he fought. Read More