The Nature Of Leadership

9 Pages 2138 Words

He would not have made a decision under the influence of somebody else for political reasons. The citizenry could trust Agricola, which is something that can only be said by a handful of leaders. This was Agricola’s way of leading that people admired and respected.
Clearly, the reason he was held in such high regard was not that he conquered a great deal of territory, or that he was a superior general. He gained a lot of territory for Roman. Agricola has conquered what is now northern England (Encyclopedia Britannica) Due to his conquering of many lands Rome granted him patrician status and appointed him governor of Aquitania. (Encyclopedia Britannica) After a victory with Scotland, he returned to Rome and lived in retirement until his death. The men in the Roman army followed his orders; they felt he was a great general. Like any Roman general, his men probably feared him.
Augustus ruled with absolute power. (Encyclopedia Britannica) He reigned from 27 BC to 14 AD, which was a long time for a leader of Rome. (Encyclopedia Britannica) Augustus reestablished the political and social stability in Rome. Rome during his reigned transformed into the greatest and most political civilization in European history. (Encyclopedia Britannica) Augustus was very much like Agricola in that he considered a very good leader. However, Augustus was emperor, and he had the power to do whatever he wanted, despite whether the people wanted it or not. However, Augustus did not do whatever he wanted. His power derives from the authority of his name and his victories.
Well, he actually did do what he wanted. However, in accordance with the main point I have been discussing, he did so with a particular style and political strategy, so as not to offset social order. He ruled very subtly. He put together a patchw...