Julius Caesar remains the greatest, most often used example of the titular “mighty ruler”. This appearance of magnificence stems from the interesting, sometimes bizarre history of his life and accomplishments. For example, Caesar was quite adept in the art of waging war and fighting, being skilled in horseriding and swordsmanship. He always led his army personally, yet not on horseback, as was the norm; he usually ran with his troops barefoot, rain or shine. Whenever his troops were losing, Caesar would often rally them in person, by forcing petrified prisoners to face his troops. Caesar’s also possessed a tremendous amount of tenacity. As was described in Suetonius’s The Life of Caesar, while fighting a battle at a bridge in Alexandria, the
…show more content…
To become a successful leader of Ancient Rome, there was largely two groups that one must please: the soldiers and the noble patricians. If the ruler shirks the soldiers, then the soldiers would rise up against them; and with their possession of all the arms, the soldiers would surely dominate. This, however, does not mean that the ruler could have ignored the patricians; it was through their will and cooperation that the empire remains effectively administered. If the ruler were to incur the hatred of the noble patricians, said patricians could simply ignore their civil duties and let the empire crumble. Julius Caesar had such lasting effects on statesmanship because of his genius aptitude for juggling the interests of both soldiers and patricians. His military exploits and shenanigans all helped bestow upon him the title of soldier supreme and war hero, which garnered him the admiration of the soldiers; while his publicity stunts (like refusing the crown and building statues) sufficiently dazzled the noble patricians into submission. Similar strategies have been attempted by various other rulers, such as Louis XIV and Francisco Franco, but none have achieved quite the same effect. In conclusion, I believe Caesar was simply history’s greatest
To become a successful leader of Ancient Rome, there was largely two groups that one must please: the soldiers and the noble patricians. If the ruler shirks the soldiers, then the soldiers would rise up against them; and with their possession of all the arms, the soldiers would surely dominate. This, however, does not mean that the ruler could have ignored the patricians; it was through their will and cooperation that the empire remains effectively administered. If the ruler were to incur the hatred of the noble patricians, said patricians could simply ignore their civil duties and let the empire crumble. Julius Caesar had such lasting effects on statesmanship because of his genius aptitude for juggling the interests of both soldiers and patricians. His military exploits and shenanigans all helped bestow upon him the title of soldier supreme and war hero, which garnered him the admiration of the soldiers; while his publicity stunts (like refusing the crown and building statues) sufficiently dazzled the noble patricians into submission. Similar strategies have been attempted by various other rulers, such as Louis XIV and Francisco Franco, but none have achieved quite the same effect. In conclusion, I believe Caesar was simply history’s greatest