Empires in Western Civilization I had some similarity as well as differences in the way they dealt with people, geographical expanse as well as success determinants as discussed under.
Charlemagne was the king of the Franks. He changed the Frankish Kingdoms into the Frankish Empire which took the entire Western and Central Europe. He also conquered Italy and was acknowledged as Imperator Augustus. Trajan on the other hand was a Roman Emperor who led an invasion in Dacia and Nabatea and later expanded the Roman administration to Parthia.
In the period before 1750, the Kingdom of England was a state which was located in the Western Europe. William who was the Duke of Normandy attacked and invaded England where he was later crowned the King of England. All the kings and leaders of England fought endlessly until the period when the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England were merged to form Kingdom of Great Britain. Alexandra the Great was the King of Macedon and he was among the greatest military commanders in which he led undefeated battle. His victories were seen in the Syria, Anatola, Phoenicia, Gaza, Judea and Egypt and up to India and the Mediterranean Sea. (Anthony, 1998, pp. 100 – 120).
All the four rulers had one thing in common; to conquer and rule a wide portion of population. Their expansion was systematic and each King had an issue before attacking and conquering the other kingdom.
Alexandra the Great was brilliant which made him to succeed in all his battles. He usually planned and was patient in planning all activities before attacking an enemy. He was also fast in making decisions and was a great risk taker. He also used a lot of force to get what he wanted. He moved with large armies that subdued the enemy easily.
Trajan was successful due to the fact that he received minimal resistance from other territories. First he was faced with minor resistance until the battle of Armenian where he deposed King Parthamasiris. He had a large army who supported him and listened to his directive without question. He won battles in various territories after which he laid down his administration in all this territories. Territories such as the Parthian were happy after long discrepancies of their leaders and competition for the seat. This contributed to the easily battle success in this territory.
Charlemagne’s successes were due to the fact that he was organized and he planned all his activities before doing anything. He usually commanded most of his battles, that is, 50% of the battles that he attended. He planned his missions and moved at a terrific speed with all logistical matters taken into consideration. He controlled all aspects that were associated with battling.
The Kingdom of England rulers had large armies and machinery. Due to selfishness and competition from other leaders the most organized won most of the battles. Kings such as William were able to conquer England following strong motivation and determination (James, 1999, pp. 23).
All the Kings and leaders planned their course of attack before embarking on it. Each leader was supposed to see the strength of his army before attacking. One thing common to all inversions is that they occurred in Europe.
Reference
Anthony, Pagden. The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire, London: Oxford University Press, 1998.
James, Peter. The Great Wars of Europe, New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1999.