The nature versus nurture debate is one that has continued for years arguing over whether children are effected more by their innate personality or their personal experiences. Ivan and Charles are examples that both are factors in a person’s disposition. In what ways were Ivan IV and Charles VI’s upbringing similar and did this have a comparable effect on their leadership and later mental diagnosis? Ivan IV and Charles VI had a similar upbringing in relation to their lineage and throne inheritance which led to their analogous leadership styles and mental illnesses. A person’s family history can have a major impact on the personality and physical traits of a child. Intermarriage, especially, is proven to have certain negative side-effects …show more content…
Prepubescence is an essential period in a child’s development. A person’s environment can alter their personality and affect them in ways that will remain throughout their lives. With Ivan and Charles, it is evident that the conditions they aged in factored into their frame of mind. Ivan, specifically, experienced multiple challenging incidents in his childhood. For example, when Ivan was three years old his father, Vasilly III, fell ill and passed away on February 4, 1533. His father recognized the futility of having an infant king rule a country, so he left a small council of nobles to rule. Similar to Ivan, Charles also had the inconvenience of inheriting the throne too early. Charles was only twelve years old when he was appointed king in September 1380, but he was not allowed to rule at first. In the early years of his reign his father arranged for his four uncles to rule until he was of age. To be entrusted with so much power at such a young age can be very stressful and the lose of a father figure proved to be traumatic in their later years. After Charles’ coronation, documents ceased to mention him until he finally took the throne around age 20. Ivan, on the other hand, devoted his life to education in his early years allowing him to document his experiences. Five years after his father passed away, Ivan’s mother was poisoned and killed. This left him, and his brother Iuri, in the care of the …show more content…
Both monarchs had a royal background and were put in power with high expectations to continue the stability that the country possessed. Citizens aspire for all government officials to keep the peoples best interest in mind. But sadly, due to Ivan’s brutal childhood, he grew up observing and learning from the mannerisms of the corrupt elite. Ivan predominately gained power through fear and with this tactic was the first to exercise a despotism in Russia. One example of this is the story of the peasants who disturbed Ivan during one of his retreats. They came to him to complain of their governor who they believed was unjust but Ivan was so upset that they had troubled him with such a petty matter that he punished them. The men had their hands tied behind their backs, boiling hot alcohol poured on their heads and then their beards lit on fire with a candle. Apprehension and terror were Ivan’s main tools for keeping his people under control. Despite his totalitarian state of mind, Ivan believed that his decisions were still best for the country and the only way to keep it safe was by leaving it in constant fear. Although not always the most rational, the czar still made the suitable choices to keep the kingdom together. Similar to Ivan, Charles was not always under the influence of his mental disability. During his 42
He was not popular with those who supported the Tsar because he made him look like a “weak autocrat unable to control his wife or hold onto his moral and political authority.” This weak, inept image of the Tsar created by Rasputin is supported by one of his ministers stating that “he did not like to send Rasputin away, for if Alexei died, in the eyes of the mother, he would have been the murderer of his own son.” This shows how great an impact Rasputin had over the Tsar and the
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
Approximately 350 years earlier, Niccolò Machiavelli formulated a set of rules which was supposed to support rulers, in
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.
During the course of the eighteenth century, both Peter I and Catherine II rose to power as Russian tsars implementing their social and political power upon their kingdom and people. They aimed to westernize Eastern Europe, amassing great power and tracts of land, yet the tactical process in which they did so differed for each individual. Peter I and Catherine the Great made effective changes within the structures of military, nobility, education, and peasantry.
He stopped sleeping and had to start taking opium and morphine. “The dull depression he experienced” (Puchner 765) effected everyone else. He then began to stink. He eventually could not even go to the bathroom by himself. He had his beloved servant Gerasim carry him to his couch. He then had Gerasim elevate his legs and sit and talk to him. Gerasim was the only person who Ivan could stand being around. Everyone believed “that he was not dying but was simply ill” (Puchner 766) and all he needed was peace and quiet. Ivan wanted to tell his family to stop lying to themselves, but he could never work up the courage.
In the Age of Absolutism, both England and France had strong absolute monarchies and leaders. Though Louis XIV, monarch of France, and Charles I, leader of Britain, both served as their country’s king and served in this role in different ways.
The early life of any child can be and is most of the time the most influential time of a child's life. The life of the parent's is, in that way, important to many. Someone can find passages into the life of the mysterious child. The parents of Grigorii Rasputin are of no exception. They have been apart of their children's lives. The mother of three, Anne Egorovna, took on the task of keeping together the home. The local custom was for the man to tend to the wheat crop and nothing more, and they did, in fact, follow local custom. The house, however, was not that of a wealthy peasant, having only one story. The father of Rasputin, Efimii or Evimii Andreevich, came to Siberia from Saratov, where he had trouble with the law. He was a carter working for the state, and he had passed out dead drunk by his horse on the way back from a fair, only to find that when he awoke someone had stolen the horse. They imprisoned him for losing state property (the horse). He served his term and moved east to Pokrovskoe. He established there and stopped drinking, won neighbors respect and married Anne. The two newlyweds bore three children, two boys and one girl, one of which was Rasputin. Grigorii was born on July 10, 1869 in the village of Pokrovsko...
During the 16th and 17th centuries a new type of ruling emerged as a result of unorganized government called royal absolutism. This type of government was seen in many European countries including France and Russia where King Louis XIV and Peter the Great ruled respectively. Both had ways of ruling that were similar to each other and different to each other. Politically, economically and socially both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were similar to and different from how they ruled and what their reign resulted.
Catherine the Great was an empress of Russia who ruled from 1762 to 1796, the longest reign of any female Russian leader. Although her reign is clouded in rumors and legends she was still able to greatly expand her country's empire. Catherine the Greats story begins like most others, born of two parents, her Father Christian August, Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst and her Mother Johanna Elisabeth of Holstein-Gottorp. But don’t let that fool you. Her story consists of many twists and turns that sets her apart from others, with the outcome of greatness. Catherine the Great also known as Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst was born May 2, 1729, in Szczecin, Poland. Not much is said on her education but it is believed that she acquired formal education. The year is 1744, and a 15-year-old Sophie was just invited to Russia by Elizabeth who had assumed the throne three years earlier. Elizabeth eventually choosing her nephew Peter as heir was now looking for a bride. Their marriage took place on August 21, 1745. Catherine and Peter had a rocky marriage from the start so when eight long years passed without...
Ivan the Terrible assumed his title as Czar in 1533 and ruled until 1584. Ivan got a lot of land during his time as ruler by being a jerk in general and creating a centrally controlled government. Ivan the Terrible created a centrally controlled Russian state and a bunch of people believed that he was mentally ill. Clearly he wasn’t a very cool dude. As slightly ironic as this is, Ivan the Terrible was the grandson of Ivan the Great. His dad died when he was three and his mom, who was a regent, died when he was eight. Apparently he was a really nice kid and then got all corrupted and suspicious and a tyrant. He did however, dig music and literature.
Countries rise and fall, but within this chaos is the certainty that new leaders will emerge to fill the shoes of those fallen. What is it that separates the great leaders from the lesser? This question weighed heavy on the minds of many great Renaissance thinkers due to the power that derives from this knowledge. In the 16th century, Niccolò Machiavelli sought out to answer this time worn question. It was in his publication of The Prince, that Machiavelli spread his cold and practical formula of how to rule. In The Prince, Machiavelli clearly states what characteristics great ruler have. These Machiavellian traits show themselves in the life of Alexander the Great and some of the traits used by Machiavelli were taken from Alexander’s style of ruling. Even though he lived before the creation of The Prince, much of Alexander’s success stems from his Machiavellian principles of war, deception, and his ability to absorb the culture of conquered territories by limiting changes in their government.
In my research paper, I will look into how intermarriage influences the development of a child and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a child raised in a family with different racial backgrounds.
Although they both are associated with different forms of governing, they actually ruled in similar manners. Charles I did not follow ordinary practices of a constitutional monarchy, and he completely dissolved the Parliament, the only “people’s power” present in the empire at that time. Peter the Great followed in the same footsteps, although he never needed to dissolve a large founded Parliament, he had to similarly dissolve another group inorder to exert his full power, namely, the aristocrats. Both leaders developed institutions within their respective empires, and although they never faced against each other, they fought surrounding countries and gained new land. Both leaders were adamant on increasing the size of their empires, but Charles I was arguably more successful as a ruler. He sent expeditions to the New World, a mission never achieved under Peter the Great. However, Peter the Great was able to reform the societal norms present when he assumed power; whereas, Charles I, even with his absolutist rule, was unable to make such a signifcant impact on the people in his empire. Unfortunately, although their rules were similarly successful, Charles I was often condemned because of his contradictions to a constitutional monarchy by practicing an absolutist form of governing, but many citizens advocated Czar Peter because absolutism was a common practice accepted by the
Her family history has been analyzed below and includes a peek into her ethnic and racial roots and the close relatives she has had. Her immediate family is composed of three brothers and a sister as her siblings. One of her brothers is married to a white female and the sister has never married but has had relationships and has a white child out of wedlock. The person we are investigating or our subject has two Caucasian children out of wedlock. One of her children is aged 24 years while the other is seven years old.