Philip II of Spain
To fully answer this question it is necessary to truly evaluate each of his policies with dealing his enemies and compatriots both foreign and domestic throughout his reign. This essay will attempt to take each main area of conflict in his life and provide clear indications as to the degree of success that Philip achieved.
Philip's character itself is a critical as his personality and characteristics convey, not only himself, but also his empire to others. It is believed by some historians that Philip was a far poorer leader than his father, Charles I, who had reigned before him. Philip grew up to be an outsider and carried this flaw with him into leadership. He never fully trusted anyone and so was incapable of calling upon others resources to aid him. He controlled a multi-cultural empire but was held very basic skills in the languages which he needed to communicate with all of his subjects. The only language he spoke fluently was Spanish and he lived in Castille throughout his time at the throne, which made the people from more far-flung areas of his kingdom begin to distrust him, and treat him more as a Castillian than one of their own. He was a devout catholic and a strong belief in ridding the continent of all forms of heresy at any cost, which could often cloud his judgement in making key decisions. All of the above contributed to his troublesome reign as leader.
The moriscos were the Muslim population inhabiting the south of Spain. Throughout Phillip's reign his primary objective had been to expel all forms of heresy and to have only his own Catholicism as the surviving religion. The moriscos existence had come about through Phillip's efforts to convert them into the Christian lifesty...
... middle of paper ...
...s a remaining blot on Philip's mind which he could not overcome, all the way up to his death.
So it becomes apparent, that while Philip may not have been at his most effective consistently throughout his reign, he also showed signs of an evolved skill for leadership. The most clinical point is that Philip appeared to learn from his mistakes in the past and make changes in his political and military thinking to manipulate a situation to his advantage. The true indication of success can be determined by comparing the state of his empire and either chronological end of his reign. Under Charles, the Holy Roman Empire may well have fared better, but Philip in time began to account for the all the problems which his coronation had inevitably created. However deep the effects Philip left upon his contemporaries, he was to leave a legacy that would never be forgotten.
nation. In order to become a true absolute ruler Louis xiv needed to make sure
As you wrote in the assignment sheet, Louis XIV and Peter the Great both wanted to do great things. They had many goals in common, as well as many different goals, and, though the two had much in common, worked in very different ways to achieve said goals.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
...lso in his style of leadership. The accurate reflection of Philip’s true exterior image facilitates the realistic depiction of him as ruler.
...no test for any man that got in his way. The way in which he carried himself, and from such a young age, is mesmerizing on its own, but the fact that he was able to be involved militarily, politically, and religiously is a feat alone. From altering the religious nature of multiple countries, to defeating every rebellion and army that stood in his way, William was an undeniably good leader. No matter what task was put in front of him, William refused to back down, and that is why he is remembered today as one of the most prosperous rulers of all time.
Frederick II, the Great, overcame the resource limitations within Prussia by mastering three aspects of the western way of war: the ability to finance war, possessing a highly disciplined military, and an aggressive mindset toward achieving quick decisive victory, which established Prussia as a major European power. Frederick II accomplished this feat while being surrounded by powerful neighbors that possessed larger populations, armies, and financial excess. His initial assessment on the state of his Prussian inheritance from his personal writings follows:
Spanish 10th essay Ponce De Leon Don Juan Ponce de Leon "To bad he had to kick the bucket!" Don Juan Ponce de Leon was a Spanish conqueror and explorer. He was born around 1460 in San Tervas de Campos, Spain. Ponce de Leon lived in an age of great discovery and excitement. Ponce de Leon is well known, claiming and naming what is now Florida, the discovery of Puerto Rico, and his never-ending search for the old time classic, the Fountain of Youth! On November 19, 1493 Ponce de Leon was one of the first Europeans to see the small island of Borinquen, the Indian name for Puerto Rico.
becoming their king (14). Philip was favored for many reasons: He was older: Philip was
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
The Book Catherine of Aragon written by Garrett Mattingly is about the life of Catherine of Aragon, the princess of Spain during the late 1400’s and early 1500’s. The book begins with Catherine’s life as a small child, before she became Queen. The first section of the book talks of Catherine’s upbringing as a princess and includes details on the duties of her and her siblings. A good example of this is described on page 17 as it shows how Catherine and her sisters had to be educated on their bloodline, heraldry and genealogy as well as dancing, cooking, and horsemanship which were the interests of her class) .
With any time period within a monarchy, there will be strong leaders and weak leaders. The Plantagenets are no exception to this. While many of the great Plantagenet leaders strengthened the state of the English monarchy, some weakened it as well. Beginning with Henry II, not only was he the king of England, but also Ireland and France (Dutton, 280). King Henry II was known for his many legal reforms, most of them involving the rights and powers of the Church. Some of these reforms reorganizing the English government include improving the quality of jurisdiction of royal officials, regulating royal revenues, and emphasizing rules within the government and public (Dutton, 280). After his death, his son Richard I, also known as Richard the Lionheart, took his place. Richard I was rebelli...
King Philip’s War was a disturbing war fought in America in 1675, almost certainly as a result of the early contact between the English Colonists and the Native Americans. The Natives were, and had always been fighting for their freedom and land, as well as their culture unharmed. Though the Natives had their own religious beliefs, the Colonists felt that they were the greater man, and that God would play a part by remaining on their side. The Natives did not trust the English with their multiple cheated promises and such, and it was only expected that the Natives would not believe in the English. There is no one established reason for this war, like many wars, but it is only probable that it be a result of the many differences between the Native way of life, and the English way.
Throughout history there have been many leaders who have succeeded and led their people to greatness, and countless others who have failed and brought ruin. A good leader must be courageous, wise, and able to react well to the difficult situations that they may face. One man who had all of these characteristics and more was Charlemagne, King of Frankia located in modern day France. Throughout his long life he united the Frankish kingdoms, saved the papacy from destruction, and fought off barbarians during a critical point in Europe’s history (Sullivan). In addition, he also went on to found two of the world’s most influential kingdoms in history, the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire (Knowles). Charlemagne the Great, as he was known in his home kingdom of Frankia, ultimately fit the mold and even exceeded the requirements for being a good leader set forth by Sun Tzu in his book: The Art of War. He endured many struggles, suffered demoralizing losses, and experienced the highest of victories throughout his storied reign as King of the Franks, Italy, and as the first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, all of which would last for centuries to come.
He uses the Banu Hudayl family to show that people of high status such as Zubayda have doubts of religion. Ali tries to diminish religion altogether by the many examples of fake conversions to Christianity which provides a sense that everyone has flaws, even the most devote Muslims. The fear which lead to the false conversion of many Muslims can directly correlate with the reasoning behind the expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in 1609 under the rule of King Phillip III. Ali does not directly state this but hints at it throughout the novel by revealing many false converts and the tension that Cisneros feels towards these fake Christians. Ali also expresses his beliefs of equality through the many examples of sins and impurities among Muslims and Christians. Ali is trying to argue that we are all imperfect and selfish people, even if we have religion there will always be good and bad people. While there are many instances of noble sacrifice, such as Zuhayr going to fight for his family and for the town he loves, Hind points out that he only does this noble act out of
During the period of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, different leaders exhibited different styles of leadership and employed different political strategies. In addition, these leaders came to power and maintained their control in their own unique ways. Each leader seemed to have his own agenda, which set the tone for that era. Five prominent leaders of this time period were Agricola, Augustus, Julius Caesar, and the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The point to be made with respect to these particular men is related to the obvious correlation between the nature of a leader’s agenda and the impact of his reign. In the end, a ruler’s fate was dependent not on his agenda, but on style and strategy with which he pushed his agenda. Those leaders whose methods were completely altruistic were heralded as great leaders, while those with devious and/or unethical methods of pushing their agendas were hastily assassinated.