Comparing Ancient Male Rulers

Comparing Ancient Male Rulers. Take any two (2) of these rulers and write an essay comparing them: Ramses II, Shihuangdi, Constantine, Ashoka, Pericles, or Charlemagne. Select rulers from different cultures. You may also propose (for approval or not) a ruler not listed. Avoid lengthy quoting or lengthy close paraphrasing from biographical sources. Make it YOUR comparative analysis. Your paper should:a) Compare the two (2) rulers in terms of their situation and methods of rule and their apparent ideals and practices, noting similarities and differences. Use specific examples.b) Consider what your study suggests about the cultures over which they ruled, identifying any similarities and differences between the cultures.c) From this comparison, suggest lessons about different types of effective leadership in the world of modern business and / or modern politics.•Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides. Both in-text citations and a References list are required. Citations and references must follow APA style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions specific to the selected topic. (Note: Students can find APA style materials located in the course shell for guidance).•Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required page length. For our purposes, you may omit any abstract page.The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:Constantine the Great, in Latin, Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, was a great Greek male legend ruler of ancient times. He was born on 27February c. 272 to Flavius Valerius Constantius, who was an army officer, and mother Helena. Ashoka Maurya, on the other hand was born 304 BCE in Pataliputra, Patna to his Father Bindusara and mother Dharma. Ashoka, derived from the work Asoka, means painless, without sorrow in Hindu. Both Ashoka and Constantine were great rulers of the early days who played a significant role in shaping their kingdoms. They had great impacts in terms of politics, wars, social life, finance, history and religion (Potter, 2013).Constantine was principally located in the Roman Empire, and while he did not introduce the Christian religion, he had a big hand in leading to its prominence especially in the Roman Empire. This was as a result of being converted to it as he entered into power. Similarly, Ashoka was on the same religious path as Constantine. He was equally a convert to a new faith, Buddhism. As a result of his royal privileges, he gave the religion resources and support for Buddhism to flourish. Surprisingly, both Constantine and Ashoka formed councils to enhance the religions. Constantine the called the Council of Nicea in 325 while Asoka called a council with the same impact as the Nicea one had on Christianity.In addition, both of these leaders’ reigns were profoundly shaped by the results of wars. For Ashoka, he truly discovered himself after the tyranny it took for him to be crowned emperor. For Constantine, the belief in God was manifested during war where he made a fatal mistake of trusting misleading information which nearly cost him his kingdom. However, both of them were equally ruthless rulers, with instances where they showed no mercy, sorrow or pain. Constantine depicts this when he executed his wife Fausta and son Crispus while Ashoka killed many of his family members on his way to being an emperor.In addition, both rulers, through their astute acumen of economy and personality, their kingdoms flourished and prospered albeit lasting until their deaths. Constantine reunited Rome that had been disjointed in the previous centuries. Ashoka as well brought India together before it was conquered after his demise. Unsurprisingly, both Ashoka and Constantine were influenced by some women in their administrations and legacies. Constantine was closely watched by his mother Helena while Ashoka was influenced by a certain queen from Vidisa who led him to Buddhism (Allen, 2013).Some important lessons can be gathered from the study of the Greek and Indian empires as they were ruled by the two great rulers. Religion was a key component in both cultures and a strong moral standpoint for the society. It was one of the greatest factors of fostering peace and uniting the people of each empire. Even during wars and battles, religion was used in driving the battle agendas and conquering lands.In addition, both cultures were emerging at the time Constantine and Ashoka entered into power. When the two rulers converted to the different religious beliefs, the authority that followed them had to equally convert. This was depicted when both rulers took the stance of forming religious councils as part of the administration bodies of the society. Moreover, both cultured grew in leaps and bounds after peace was fostered and established. Just as religion had a great impact, so did the absence of war and conquests.As depicted by their ruthless administration orders of killing and executing enemies, criminals and people who betrayed the rulers, this showed that the two kingdoms had not abandoned the tyrannical view of things. They believed for peace to prevail, enemies had to be wiped out.From the study of the above two cultures, rulers and leadership styles, plenty of lessons can be gathered and applied to contemporary and modern business environments.  The first lesson that can be clearly seen from these two leaders is taking a position in a certain matter. Both leaders believed that they had the ability to change the society and they knew the direction they wanted to go. Regardless of whether that direction proved costly or not, they stood their ground and forged ahead. Modern business people often lack these skills as they are afraid to make bold decisions or take risks. Where there is a great risk yields great reward.As such Constantine and Ashoka could fall under the pacesetting style of leadership. Such leaders usually model some form of excellence and provide long time direction in matters they believe in. At the same time, since both of these leaders had seemingly the same leadership styles, they would also be categorized as authoritative leaders and affiliative leader. The former normally does plenty of mobilization and provides a vision towards an end product. The latter works to create social and emotional bonds that reassure all parties that they belong to the same organization.In conclusion, the fall of both empires after the demise of the two rulers provides stern lessons that ought to be learned and embraced in the present society. As much as a ruler is doing well, leadership and success needs to be transferable. The success of the Roman and Indian empires should have continued if the standing principles had been transferred to the successors.