Kings and Emperors are certainly multi-faceted people. Many have good qualities like military courage, organization, decision-making skills, and fairness. Some possess negative traits such as inflated egos, propensity for violence, greed, and mistrust. These rulers might have an inability to adapt or change. Most often, a ruler in Ancient History is a combination of these qualities.
Comparing two rulers, Alexander of Mesopotamian and Clovis, King of the Franks, the similarities are unmistakable. Each one retained extreme military knowledge and courage. During military offensives, Clovis pillaged villages and conquered neighbors. Alexander was a military genius and trained since childhood to be a great warrior. (Blackboard Unknown, 260) …show more content…
One sees instances such as Clovis wanting to return a valuable vase to the bishop and then killing the soldier that damaged it (Halsall 1996, 1). King Clovis ruthlessly dealt with enemy rulers, but he had compassion for their families. In another example, Clovis aided the conversion of 3000 men to Christianity in order for the soldiers to receive salvation. At other times, Clovis saw fit to invade and rob other countries or tribes. Alexander also showed glimmers of fair play. He had a vision of a cultural mixture dominated by the Greeks. The emperor accommodated conquered people by adopting some of their customs and dress. Alexander encouraged Greek soldiers to marry non-Greek women (Blackboard Unknown, 260). The Greek soldiers, sometimes, did not appreciate the wisdom in these decisions. Alexander opened up trade routes and ports to facilitate exchanges of goods, knowledge, and technologies. Alexander was also very generous with his army as evidenced by generous payments to soldiers when discharged. He gave veterans extra pay and gratuity of one talent (Blackboard Unknown, …show more content…
As kings became more powerful, they became increasingly totalitarian. In the case of these two men, both reigned by absolute power. However, Clovis saw himself as the peoples’ guardian toward the end of the reign. The monarch moved to Paris and established a base. Stability in the kingdom increased. Alexander‘s stabilized the Greek Empire through fear and intimidation. He was the force that held the loosely knit empire together and upon the emperor’s death, the kingdom unraveled. There are examples of egotistical acts for both men. Clovis’ killing relatives and Alexander’s telling Darius that he was not an equal to Alexander are two documented examples. Neither harbored a rabid ego like Hitler or Nero. Although, through intimidation, each man made a convincing argument that “he was the man for the job”.
Clovis and Alexander proved their ability to change. Clovis made a massive change from paganism to Christianity. Alexander adapted to new cultures that he conquered. The emperor admired the Persian and Oriental societies and sought to incorporate these cultures into his vision of a Hellenistic society (Blackboard Unknown, 264). These changes were attempts at better kingdoms and lives of the Greek and Frank
Comparing two rulers, Alexander of Mesopotamian and Clovis, King of the Franks, the similarities are unmistakable. Each one retained extreme military knowledge and courage. During military offensives, Clovis pillaged villages and conquered neighbors. Alexander was a military genius and trained since childhood to be a great warrior. (Blackboard Unknown, 260) …show more content…
One sees instances such as Clovis wanting to return a valuable vase to the bishop and then killing the soldier that damaged it (Halsall 1996, 1). King Clovis ruthlessly dealt with enemy rulers, but he had compassion for their families. In another example, Clovis aided the conversion of 3000 men to Christianity in order for the soldiers to receive salvation. At other times, Clovis saw fit to invade and rob other countries or tribes. Alexander also showed glimmers of fair play. He had a vision of a cultural mixture dominated by the Greeks. The emperor accommodated conquered people by adopting some of their customs and dress. Alexander encouraged Greek soldiers to marry non-Greek women (Blackboard Unknown, 260). The Greek soldiers, sometimes, did not appreciate the wisdom in these decisions. Alexander opened up trade routes and ports to facilitate exchanges of goods, knowledge, and technologies. Alexander was also very generous with his army as evidenced by generous payments to soldiers when discharged. He gave veterans extra pay and gratuity of one talent (Blackboard Unknown, …show more content…
As kings became more powerful, they became increasingly totalitarian. In the case of these two men, both reigned by absolute power. However, Clovis saw himself as the peoples’ guardian toward the end of the reign. The monarch moved to Paris and established a base. Stability in the kingdom increased. Alexander‘s stabilized the Greek Empire through fear and intimidation. He was the force that held the loosely knit empire together and upon the emperor’s death, the kingdom unraveled. There are examples of egotistical acts for both men. Clovis’ killing relatives and Alexander’s telling Darius that he was not an equal to Alexander are two documented examples. Neither harbored a rabid ego like Hitler or Nero. Although, through intimidation, each man made a convincing argument that “he was the man for the job”.
Clovis and Alexander proved their ability to change. Clovis made a massive change from paganism to Christianity. Alexander adapted to new cultures that he conquered. The emperor admired the Persian and Oriental societies and sought to incorporate these cultures into his vision of a Hellenistic society (Blackboard Unknown, 264). These changes were attempts at better kingdoms and lives of the Greek and Frank