George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar, These individuals were considered by many to be three of the most successful leaders in history, who were loved by the people they led. But is it better to be loved, or feared? Other people throughout history have been successful on the other side of the spectrum; people who lead by fear. Leaders such as Genghis Khan, and Attila the Hun, were widely feared by the people they ruled. However, this did not get in the way of their success as leaders. In fact, that same fear may have benefitted them.

There are many pros and cons to both ways of ruling. For example, you can be loved by your people and only do things that benefit everyone, but your actions will prevent you from advancing in any way. You cannot gain a new territory, or take control of a new resource without a cost to others-There is always an expense. Now let's say that you decide to use fear to your advantage and rule with an iron fist. It will without a doubt provide many short term wins in the beginning and make your people happy, but eventually you may have control of more land than you can manage. You may have also made more people and/or countries unite against you than you can handle.

A major advantage of ruling through fear is that …show more content…
But this is dependant on their morals and values, and the morals and values you show them. If respect is not valuable to the people you rule they will likely try to overthrow you, or otherwise disrupt your rule. Other countries will take advantage of your kindness. They may try to take control of your resources and territories, and do to you what you wouldn’t do to them. Your country will be exploited by those with the resources to exploit it, and you may require assistance from other countries as you lose control. Countries you have held as allies in the past may not provide the support you need, if any at