Alexander the Great and the Romans in the Mediterranean both accomplished major conquests, expanding their empires significantly. However, each faction took a different approach toward their conquests. They both had different purposes for their conquests, and both had different outcomes from these conquests as well. For Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, he initially began his conquest with the purpose of achieving his father’s dream, which was to conquer the Persian empire (Martin, Ancient Greece, 221). In only a matter of time, Alexander accomplished his father’s goal, staying ambitious for the next conquest he had in mind. After conquering Persia, his next major conquest was Egypt, where he was claimed to be a pharaoh after conquering it (Martin, Ancient Greece, 246) The next places he thought of conquering were Arabia and North Africa, but he was not able to because of a severe illness that led to his …show more content…
Alexander’s initial purpose for his conquests was to fulfill his father, Philip II’s, dream, which he most definitely did. The Romans, however, expanded their empire for better security, financial advantages, and traditional purposes, as well as for a better reputation. Alexander led his troops throughout every conquest, and every battle took place on land. But the Romans did not have a leader like Macedon did Alexander. Their expansion progressed through imperialism, and they not only fought on land; they fought at sea as well. Alexander’s conquests allowed for scientific research and discoveries to be made, and also helped improve trade. Rome’s expansion caused Greek culture to bring an influence on the Romans. It also brought damage to the poor farm families of Rome (Martin, Ancient Rome, 85). Alexander and the Romans were both very successful throughout their conquests, but each performed them differently, and with that came different