Introduction
Alexander the Great is also known as Alexander III hailing from Macedon. He was a leader of Macedon which is a state located in the northern part of ancient Greece. Aristotle tutored him until he was 16 years of age. When he turned 30, he had one of the largest and powerful empires in the ancient world. The empire stretched from the Himalayas to the Ionian Sea. His inheritance of an expansive throne from his father Philip II of Macedon was after the assassination of his father.
Wellington, on the other hand, was an anti-hero leader as compared to Alexander the Great who was a hero of all times. Alexander the great and Wellington are two leaders whose leadership qualities, as well as overall qualities, highly differ. This essay compares and contrasts the differences between the leadership of Alexander the Great and Wellington.
Similarities and Differences
Alexander III the Great is known as a conqueror of the Persian Empire. He is considered to be a great and prosperous military genius. He is also considered as an inspiration for the later conquerors for example Caesar, Napoleon as well as Hannibal. One of the outstanding features of Alexander the Great therefore is his prosperous leadership, conquering as well as the acquisition of empires. One of the reasons for his success in leadership is the fact that he had the ability to watch his father Philip transform Macedonia into a great winning victory and military power of all times. Being able to emulate his fathers’ leadership abilities transformed him to follow in his fathers’ footsteps at all times (Shone and Ganeri 57).
When Alexander the Great ascended into the throne, his first move was in disposing off all Macedonian’s enemies by an order towards execution. This move of leadership led to the remaining loyal citizens of the empire. Despite the rebellions that arose as a result of Philips’ assassination, Alexander’s swift action restored peace in the empire. His leadership was also highly backed up by speed. When the Thessalians blocked the roads leading towards Greece, he went on and forced the way into Greece to restore peace in both the northern and the southern parts of ancient Greece (Shone and Ganeri 61).
His strong army also backed up Alexander’s leadership. He was therefore able to defeat the Tribalians and the Thracians. This was evident in a series of tough battles that saw him win in all the battles (Keegan 85). One of the major achievements that put Alexander the Great in ancient and even modern history is the fact that he invaded and conquered many territories. He was powerful in the battlefields and he organized his armies in unison to enable Macedonia to achieve victory.
At the age of 22, he was ready to invade Asia. He, therefore, appointed his father’s former experienced general known as Antipater. With an army of close to 13,500 Macedonian soldiers fighting against Persians, he eventually achieved victory. Other battles won included the Battle of Gaugamela and the sieges organized in Gaza and Tyre. Alexander the Great is known as the King who used command that led to victory throughout his rule. His military judgments were entirely based on surveys, secretaries, scientists, clerks, doctors and official historians whom he consulted before making any decisions.
18th Century India is known to be a huge graveyard of European lives. Wellington arrived in India at a time when this country was on the verge of acceleration and not obliterate fortunes. The one thing that highly favored Wellington was the fact that their enemies were never united. The British therefore had the opportunity to defeat them. Wellington, therefore, took part in overthrowing the Southern ruler known as Tippoo Sultan situated at Seringapatam. The following year, he was also able to defeat Dhungia Wagh a terrorist of Tippoo’s former kingdom. Both Wellington and Alexander the Great have one major similarity which is defeating enemies at the battle (Keegan 92).
The difference between the two however comes in on the positioning on the battlefield. Alexander the Great, an inspired and bound leader placed himself at the beginning very close to the battle line. Towards the end, he moved further close to the forefront of the wars’ battle line. Alexander took risks unlike Wellington, Alexander the Great had a number succession of wounds while Wellington was only hurt and shows he was not a risk taker. Wellington’s close command was mainly to be updated on the on goings during the battle. He also had the ability to react to any events. His means of communicating on the battlefield was the use of trumpets and mounted messengers (Keegan 99).
Conclusion
These two leaders portray differences both in and out of the battlefield. They are ancient leaders with Wellington a Briton who invaded India while Alexander a Greek known for myriad invasions on neighboring countries. Alexander is known by historians and researchers to have been a king while Wellington was largely a gentleman, Wellington is perhaps the perfect embodiment of a gentleman from ideal England. Wellington understood the world he lived in on his own while Alexander emulated his father’s leadership has been the son of a king. Alexander had self-satisfaction after wars but for Wellington, self-satisfaction is what he felt most.
The two also had differences in their positioning in the battlefield with Wellington succumbing to only one injury while Alexander succumbed to several. Generally, these two kings are well known for leading their troops to battle and on many occasions winning the battles.
Works Cited
Keegan, John. The Mask Of Command: A Study of Generalship. New York: Random House, 2011. Print.
Shone, Rob and Anita Ganeri. Alexander the Great: The Life of a King and Conqueror. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2005. Print.