After I have read this article written by Philip Delves Broughton, I would like to make summaries and add up some extra information for each these great leaders that appear in this article. Ataturk was so successful as he parlayed his military victories in to a single minded devotion to raising up his fellow Turks and not worrying about keeping the non-Turks of the Ottoman Empire inside it. Hannibal was usually a ruthless and tactical genius, through oddly he let slip his one chance to totally destroy Rome after his overwhelming victory at Cannae. He also had little political savvy in his own Carthage. Roman society and culture at the time of Caesar was at complex as our modern world. He navigated his way through and to the very top in all spheres; military, political and cultural. He had true governing genius and his battlefield victories against foreign and domestic opponents were amazing. Definitely a massive egotist and perhaps insane by the time of his assassination, he nevertheless would likely have risen to the top of any society at any time in history. His influence on the world is a large as anyone ever. I noticed that some of the facts are misplaced in this article when I am looking for extra information through the internet. Hannibal wasn’t a wanderer so must as a fugitive driven from pillar to post by a vengeful Rome. Alesia ended with surrender not a massacre of Gallic forces. Caesars break in Egypt with Cleopatra was followed by successful campaigns in Asia Minor, North Africa and Spain. No sign of a decadent decline in his powers there. Mustafa Kemal, the future Ataturk, was not a theater commander at Gallipoli. He rose to power fighting off a Greek invasion of Asia Minor which leads to the founding of modern Turkey.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document