Alexander the Great was one of the old leaders from Macedonia and by extension one of the greatest military minds in history (Burgan, 2010). He was the king of Macedonia and Persia, and during his tenure, he managed to establish the largest empire in the entire ancient world. Alexander the Great was brilliant, charismatic, ruthless and diplomatic, and hence inspiring loyalty to his men who would follow him anywhere. However, he died before realizing his dream of bringing unity between the Greek and the Asians (Freeman, 2011).
On the other hand, Charlemagne was a medieval emperor who reigned most parts of western Europe (Collins, 2011). He had a mission of uniting people from different backgrounds into one kingdom, and later convert them to Christianity. Charlemagne was a military strategist. However, his reign was primarily characterized by warfare as he was determined to accomplish his goals (Collins, 2011). In 1800, Charlemagne was crowned the emperor of Romans by Pope Leo III, and thus his primary role was to encourage and facilitate the Carolingian Renaissance and the cultural revival of the European countries. However, he died in 1814, although he had ensured the survival of Christianity in the West (Collins, 2011).
The empires of both Charlemagne and Alexander the Great were successful. However, Alexander the Great was a better leader than Charlemagne. Unlike Charlemagne, Alexander the Great had the benefit of being trained and educated in the relevant aspects of cultural diversity, political and military matters mainly by excellent tutors such as Aristotle (Burgan, 2010). Additionally, Alexander had gained and learned a lot of basic concepts of leadership as he accompanied his father on several occasions with regards to military campaigns. His brilliant and charismatic leadership skills are demonstrated when he assumed the throne at only 20 years old, after the assassination of Philip (Freeman, 2011).
Additionally, Alexander the Great managed to formulate an efficient and innovative winning strategy better than Charlemagne’s (Freeman, 2011). For instance, Alexander the Great led to establishing his kingdom with military personnel whose number was not more than 40,000 men. This meant that he had to effectively manage and employ his forces strategically to counter the overwhelming numbers that were opposing him. Nevertheless, he managed to use terrains, mobility, tactics, and weaponry such as the formidable Macedonia Phalanx to overpower his opponents (Burgan, 2010). Therefore, the brilliance and capabilities of Alexander the Great’s leadership skills are demonstrated by the ability to overwhelm his opponent despite the limited number of his military personnel.
Contrary to Charlemagne, Alexander the Great encouraged and supported his followers for their superiority and exceptional effort. Also, he motivated and talked to them in a manner deemed to bring greater success in future. For instance, he routinely singled individuals out for particular attention and recalls actions of former and fallen heroes who had demonstrated acts of bravery (Freeman, 2011). As a charismatic leader, Alexander the Great recognized individual contributions and consequently inspired and gave them hope for future greater excellence.
Finally, unlike Charlemagne, Alexander the Great managed to foster group identification more effectively. He created an astute mechanism so as to keep and maintain his military personnel engaged (Freeman, 2011). Moreover, his effective oratory skills facilitated and enhanced a vast support from his troops. Consequently, his management and governance capability managed to foster an excellent group identity between his forces. Also, he encouraged his troops to make exceptional efforts (Burgan, 2010).