Comparing Alexander The Great And Julius Caesar

Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were both strong leaders for their time. By looking through their leadership styles and ethical morals we can see that Julius Caesar was the more ethical leader of the two. This evidence is shown through a comparison and contrast of their political points of view, interactions with other countries, and cultures. From a political point of view, Julius Caesar was the more ethical leader. He would listen to what his people wanted and took into consideration their point of views. He moved Rome into a more democratic society, which is how our government runs today. When he invaded other countries, he was doing it in their best interest and continued to allow those countries to keep their culture instead of changing them like Alexander the Great did. Alexander was only interested in completing his father's journey of conquering as much land as possible. He ran more of an autocratic government, in where his way was the only way. …show more content…
Alexander had a great and powerful military, which is why many countries were afraid of him and would surrender immediately. Egypt placed him so high in their hierarchy, that he was considered a god because their people felt threatened. For countries to be this frightened of a military power shows that Alexander meant business and he would take over anything that stood in his way of power. This is very similar to the way that many of the World War II dictators ruled, that anything in their way was an irrelevant threat and had to be stopped, and this is not an ethical way to lead others. By leading through fear is not an ethical way to get people to respect the government and leadership. Julius Caesar was motivated through doing good for Rome, while still expanding. He would invade other countries but with the intention of doing good for Rome and these countries, instead of just for