Although, Gustav III was initially admired by his people for staging a coup d’etat, his later actions caused him to become unpopular with the citizens and with global leaders. Gustav III of Sweden had a big act to follow after all the successful leaders that came before him but he contributed to the waning of the Vasa Dynasty by not being a good leader due to his inability to empathize with the citizens of his country. He lacks the ability to show concern for Sweden and is blinded by his self-interests. The article suggests that Gustav turned a blind eye when advisors or troops addressed complaints to him. He also made a habit of going behind the backs of his ministers. He easily faced down his opponents but was never able to gain respect because
Lambert Simnel as a Greater Threat to the Security of Henry VII than Perkin Warbec
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
for a ruler to be feared than loved, if he is to fail in one of the
In his work The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli explores the complex relationship between a ruler and his people, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that the people, because they are crucial to the well being of the country, are to be manipulated in order for a country to thrive. In order to manipulate effectively one must keep the people oppressed, but not to the point of inspiring hate, and only when that balance is achieved is when a ruler can successfully manipulate their people.
the king of his Danish lands. However, this king faces many problems due to the
‘…the first and the last ruler of Hapsburg Spain who had the breadth of vision to devise plans on a grand scale for the future of a world-wide monarchy: a statesman whose capacity for conceiving great designs was matched only by his consistent incapacity for carrying them through to a successful conclusion.’
In The Prince, Machiavelli, sets out to instruct Lorenzo de Medici on how best to rule. In the events leading to the Revolutionary War, in which the people of the British colonies in America fought to rid themselves of the rule of Great Britain, King George III all but assured that he would not be able to maintain power over the colonies. Machiavelli states that in order to hold on to power in colonies, a ruler must be able to foresee potential problems that may arise and should act to quell these issues. These steps were obviously not taken. Additionally, Machiavelli stated that a ruler should not send in an “occupying army” as King George III did (The Prince, 10). This violent beginning was similar to the violent beginning of Rome in which Romulus killed Remus (Katz, Lecture, 3/11/15). In moving on from a tyrannical ruler to a democracy, Machiavelli would praise the movement to a “popular government” as being in the natural order of governments (Course Pack, Discourses, Book 1,
King George III did not follow Machiavelli's manual for being a good prince. Machiavelli's main lesson was "a prince must always seem to be generous, merciful, faithful, spirited, and humane.” If a prince does not have those characteristics, his people will lose all support for him. King George III did not make sure people from the American Colonies saw him as a good King. King George III did not go out of his way to cover up his wrong doings. Instead, everyone knew he did not really care about the American Colonists. They knew he only cared about the land, and acquiring the largest empire. The King continually broke his own laws, contrary to Machiavelli's principles. Machiavelli once said, “a prince should always be able to come up with a reason for war”. King George III didn’t have a reason. He kept sending armies into the American Colonies. He transported large armies of foreign mercenaries to kill people and confiscate their land. By doing this, King George was only sabotaging himself.
motives by which despot rulers rule, but it fails to explain why and how these
Frederick the Great exploited the advantages of military evolutions and revolutions to develop a powerful nation-state, Prussia, through the exploitation of economic and social policies forced Prussia advantage of superiority and employed their society norms upon others. The implement of the infantry, cavalry, and artillery assisted with the revolutionized Prussia to military superiority through the delivery of lethal strikes and unwavering means to survive. In conjunction with economic and social policies, the incorporation of increased military professionalism fostered forces that were more disciplined and utilized tactics, enabling military evolutions and revolutions to become more innovated. As Parker stated, “Prussia was thus a state
But, in reality, his countless massacres of innocents quickly wash over that farcical statement; he was also the one that brought upon the fall of his own empire. Alexander murdered his most trusted general, Parmenio, after he suggested that Alexander focused on strengthening his empire instead of conquering more land. ( ). Alexander wouldn’t even take Parmenio’s suggestion, the very one that could save his empire, and killed him just because he didn’t favor it. A ruler that doesn’t accept negative feedback is a true tyrant. Although not a tyrant, Alexander was on the edge of becoming one. Alexander did not fortify his empire, thus, it fell apart shortly after his death. (Dr. Ellis L., Alexander the Great: After Alexander, europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/westciv/alexander/14.shtml). Although Alexander was renowned for his sophisticated military tactics, he lacked the diplomatic and political skills to actually rule his land. As Alexander’s empire was only held together by himself, and because he named no heir, he brought upon the end of his empire, launching its inhabitants into civil war. A ruler should not only be judged by his military power but also, if not mostly, their political and diplomatic
Niccoló Machiavelli claims in “The Qualities of the Prince” that a prince must have certain qualities that will allow him to seize and maintain his power as a ruler. Machiavelli asserts that these qualities will guarantee the ruler to be able to govern his subjects effectively. According to him, a prince must study the art of war, must understand generosity and to what extent he must be generous to be effective, must choose to either be loved or feared, and be able to keep his word to his citizens according to the situation. These qualities can still apply in today’s politics, and will be useful for a modern time politician as long as they are used carefully.
...ies, leaving a series of foolish kings left clueless in the middle. Thus, flattery and rebellion become the same vice due to the fact that they both take advantage of the weaknesses of a single person, the King.
It is commonly believed by both lay people and political philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority. Niccolò Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince, by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular, all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve its power, and preserving the state’s power preservers its people. In doing so, whatever actions the state exercises are justified with this end goal in mind. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Machiavelli's moral philosophy is deeply embedded in the present day justice administration. Due to this, Machiavelli’s political thought can serve as a reference for illustrating how today’s administrators can benefit from following the examples of other great leaders, such as on matters of global warming.
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.