My View on Historic Conquerors 分享下我的小作业

采薇子

Emperors like Caesar、Alexander and Napoleon became world-known as historic conquerors, not only because of their excellent statesmanship or strategist talent. Their characters are the most influential factors to the final fates, both the personal and the nation's. From the view of historic point, are these conquerors successful or failure?

    Julius Caesar, the symbol of Ancient Rome, was a master in fighting. Ever since the battle of Crow, he gradually came to mean invincible and unconquerable. His distinguished gift and capability made him quickly be the king of an empire. His lasting and eternal glorious shines in the history.

    Alexander the Great is regarded as the NO.1 Maestro of military, a mythic figure, for the incredible feat he had got throughout fightings. He begun his career early with so little means to carry out so brilliant intentions; when he was still a juvenile, he had set a prestige among the players who followed him fighting around the world. With special attention paid by fate, he accomplished many coincident feats: he overthrew obstacles of his ambition and walked a new way in the ruins. Besides the military’s ingenious, he was hard to foresee, patience, discipline and selfless, determined and so on. He was also great for all-conquering on the land at the age of 33, so that you can’t imagine how prosperity his empire would be if he could live longer. He concentrated so many virtues: justice, moderation, open-minded, trustworthy and stress humanity to the vanquished. His main character is the good ingredients. He acquired virtues from natural and evils from fate.

     As for Alexander, his dying young not only allowed him to retain undefeated record, but also made people remember the glorious
moments in his limited life.

    Napoleon Bonaparte, nearly the great emperor of the whole Europe, is another genius of the world’s military history. Actually, he was an extreme egoist. He is often compared with Hitler. However, both share a very important distinction. Hitler was crazy to some degree, while Napoleon was an ambitious opportunist, with no special interest in sensational massacres. His rule can not be compared to the Nazi
concentration camps in any aspect.

      Napoleon’s reputation is so illustrious that it is easy to overestimate his influence. In the short term, his impact is really significant and might more than Alexander, though far inferior to Hitler. From the long term effects, he seems to be more important than Hitler, but less than Alexander.

    In comparision with the conquerors above, Hitler’ strategy often made the fatal mistakes, which cause him a loser in military. Needless to say not really exterminate any country, but he did not destruct the Jews, and the rule of his occupations was very short. However, he is successful in history, because it was precisely he that aroused Germen the spirit of steel and self-improvement. Hitler and his Nazi completely shattered, but Germany has become strong today, remaining the world’s standouts.

     Great Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler these dictators, conquerors from certain aspect can be classified as a category: historically, they were the strongest in their times. While science and technology developing, human capacity is also on the rise, the absolute power of rulers is increasing as well. So it’s not fair to compare figures in different eras. The further history is more inaccurate, and the figures have more mythic ingredients. As Marx said, in history, “the brutal conquerors are always conquered by the higher civilization they had conquered”, this is an eternal law of history.

     For these historic conquerors, perhaps we can praise or denigrate, but ever more, they should be put into history and silently looked.

[ 本帖最后由 vivi0905 于 21-7-2008 20:17 编辑 ]

喜鹊

excellent essay!   enjoy it later/

采薇子

    o(∩_∩)o...