Edward the Confessor as a Failure During Edward's the Confessor's reign from 1042-1066, Edward faced many problems. According to Stafford, some of the problems had no obvious solutions. Some historians argue that Edward was a failure as he was unable to deal with the power of the Godwine, and was even less successful with the power of Harold and thirdly, he was unable to solve the problem of the succession issue according to Barlow as he shows that there were no contemporary sources that show Edward dealing with the succession, in the latter part of his reign. Evidence shown from historians that Edward had an inconsistent policy towards the succession issue. The Norman sources and English sources tell a different story about whether Harold or William had the right to the throne. However, other historians may argue that Edward was not a failure, as he was able to maintain relationship with the Godwines, he was able to solve the problem of not having enough supporters, able to defend his kingdom according to Barlow and also according to Barlow he was able to keep his reign peaceful, this view is backed up by the ASC, which shows that there was no evidence of crisis during Edward's latter part of the reign. It could be argued by some historians that Edward should not be described as a failure as king. This was shown as Edward had some military experiences, and has defended England from invasion from other countries, which shows his success. An example was shown by Barlow as he describes Edward defending both England and Denmark. "True Anglo-Dane and which both for Edward's security in England and also for his nephew Swein's success... ... middle of paper ... ...efore is most probable that the ASC (D) was saying the truth. However it is likely that Edward did promise William the throne as William was facing Baronial Rebellion at the time and would not have come to England to meet the king unless it was as important as an issue as being promised the throne. Also according to ASC (E), it mentions that Robert went to Rome, similar to that of William of Jumieges, but there is no mention of him speaking to William about the throne, but however mentions that William comes to England at once. Therefore it is most probable that this was concerning the succession issue. However if this was the case, it could be argued that Edward was a failure as he should not have promised William the throne if he had already promised Swein the throne. This shows William's inconsistency of his policy.
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
At one time in our lives there is a moment that we may think of ourselves as better than someone or something else. There may also be a point when making a decision leads to a great error in judgment. In the play Oedipus Rex, written by Sophocles, both of these characteristics can be seen in the main character. These characteristics are known as tragic flaws. These flaws are known as hubris meaning excess pride, leading to overconfidence, and hamartia meaning errors and weakness in judgment. Both of these characteristics are the main reason of destruction and downfall in mankind and the tragic hero in this play. The tragic hero is unable to escape his misfortune that is destined to happen. There are many more tragic flaws other than these two that also contribute to the falling of the hero. The destruction and downfall can be seen as fate. Even though the hero chooses his own actions, the resulting consequences that come about are ones that are unable to be changed. As seen, no one is able to outrun his or her own fate.
Henry V, the eldest son of Henry IV and Mary Bohun, was born in 1387.
“Oedipus is, as it were, only a tragic analysis. Everything is already in existence, and has only to be unraveled.” Throughout the history of literature, there has been perhaps no other character quite as complex and convoluted as Oedipus. Whether it be the reality of his parents abandoning him to die or the mere fact that he married his own mother Jocasta, Oedipus has been continually analyzed and processed by scholars in an attempt to discover the means by which Oedipus arrived at his eventual outcome. To summarize, Oedipus, being originally from Corinth, travels to Thebes in search of his true heritage. After a series of events, Oedipus becomes the king of Thebes and soon discovers the truth. Once thorough deliberation has been given to
Ireland’s purpose is to show how Chaucer had a good example to show his final order to his audience. He establishes a reflecting tone for explaining the Wife of Bath’s sovereignty. This work is significant because of the comparison between The Wife of Bath’s Tale and Prologue. (Ireland 10)
The nature of the tragic hero of ancient Greek tragedy was first discussed by Aristotle in Poetics in the fourth century BC. Using Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus the King as a model, Aristotle identified four characteristics necessary for a tragic hero: position (power, royalty, good intentions), tragic flaw (a character’s fault that leads to the hero’s downfall), reversal (the downfall itself), and recognition (the hero’s realization that he has caused his own downfall). In Antigone, another of Sophocles’ tragedies, King Creon becomes king of Thebes after the deaths of Oedipus’ sons Eteocles and Polyneices. As, the proud, stubborn Creon abandons the gods’ law and refuses to consider the advice of others, tragic consequences ensue. During his reign, Creon demonstrates all four characteristics of the tragic hero.
Edward V: life dates, c. 12-13 years, November 2, 1470—c. September-October 1483; reign, less than 3 months, April 9—June 22, 1483.
be a great king, but a journey within himself to find who he truly was
Oedipus is widely known for being the man that killed his father and married his mother. After Oedipus finds out about what he has done he proceeds to jab both of his eyes out and remains blind for the rest of his life. By Oedipus doing this it means that his fate that was told to his parents at the beginning of the story had come true. With Oedipus jabbing his eyes out, this made it clear that this was a tragedy. Oedipus is the perfect fit of being a tragic hero. First of all by being born into royalty and throughout his life he held a royal persona. Also he makes some choices that leads him to his own destruction. For example, with him already marrying his mother and his mother had already had several of his kids their was nothing that he could do when he found out that his wife was also his mother. In the story as he went back to confront his mother/wife, she had already hung herself. As for being a hero, he done many heroic things throughout his life. For example, when he arrived at the city where he met his mother and father, there
Henry V looks like the perfect leader; however, despite all the heroic speeches, Henry is still irresponsible at times. In Act I, Henry relies on Bishop of Canterbury to give him the reasons to go to war. He asks, "Why the law Salic that they have in France or should or should not bar us in our claim (19)?" And once more, he asks, "May I with right and conscience make this claim (23)?" Based on these statements, Henry is putting the responsibility of a King to decide to go to war onto a Bishop. This shows that King Henry is irresponsible. Furthermore, in Act III, sc. 3, after Henry has conquered half of Harfleur, he demands the governor to open the gate, or he will not take the blame for his soldiers' doings. King Henry says, "Take pity of
All art is propaganda. Art is meant to sway a person, make them feel something. Art can also be used to elaborate on policy or push an agenda. The painting King Edward and the Pope accomplishes all of these and more. There are so many layers to the painting that I can hardly do justice to it all, but I shall try. I plan to do this by examining several key aspects of the painting and their significance. I will begin by looking at the roles of the titular figures and what the painting says about them. From there, I will examine the peoples surrounding these figures. Then, I will discuss what this painting has to say about common people during this era. Then, I will move into discussing some of the more prominent symbolism present
Oedipus the King tells the tragic story of Oedipus and how Oedipus unwittingly fulfills his prophecy. Oedipus prophecy was that he would murder his father and marry his mother. Oedipus grew up in the kingdom of Corinth where he believed that he was the son of the Kings of Corinth; when Oedipus discovered that he is destined to kill his father and marry his mother, Oedipus decides to leave Corinth and try to prevent the prophecy from happening. Unknowingly to him during his escape from his destiny, Oedipus murderers his father and eventually marries his mother and fulfils the prophecy. After reading Oedipus the King I believe that one of the main ideas of Oedipus the King is that Oedipus own tragic flaws lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy and his eventual downfall.
Oliver Cromwell was an English peasant who became one of the most influential, effective and controversial leaders ever to rule England. A great military leader, he ultimately overthrew the King and, for the first time, changed his country from a monarchy to a Republic. Despite the fact that he was a strong leader, Cromwell’s goal and achievement of eliminating the monarchy did not last long after his death. Oliver Cromwell was and remains a controversial figure in history, reviled by many and revered by many others.
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Milton’s Satan of Paradise Lost bear many similarities to each other. Both characters possess diabolical ambitions to overthrow the natural order of their circumstances for the lust for power. Both committed atrocious acts that led to others’ downfalls-Macbeth committed multiple acts of murder, and Satan vowed to corrupt humankind and did so with deceit. Both are portrayed as complex characters with, in some cases, conflicted feelings about their evil doings. Aside from these similarities, there are significant differences as well. For one thing, the incitation of both characters’ evil doings differ. Macbeth, it could be argued, is a victim of fate, whereas Satan is portrayed in Paradise Lost as very willful in his rebellion. While Macbeth and Satan are similar in their ambitions, their lust for power, and their conflicted emotions, they differ greatly in what initially led them to their evil paths and pushed them on to their ultimate destruction.