Hannibal and Mao Zedong are alike in several ways. Firstly, they both were recognized by the world and left their mark in the history. It’s hard to say which one was the best. Both were the greatest leader, and had the huge military. They’ve done affects millions of people, especially Mao. Secondly, they both have the long journeys or marches that were really difficult and dangerous. Each of them was faced with many obstacles while they were traveling. For example, crossing the Great Snowy Mountains, 5,000 meters high, facing with winter storms, or being attacked by the local people in some places. Many men were killed by the bad weather or small battles, and the last part of journey the huge army was reduced to less than one - half. Lastly, There was someone who encouraged their life. Hanibal’s father was a general in the army. He hates Romans. He swore that he would never be a friend of Rome, so he made his son promise to destroy them. The same as Mao’s father. Although he was an illiterate farmer, he wanted his sun to have the knowledge and the …show more content…
education that he had no chance to learn. We can said that their father is the reason of their success. In contrast, There are somethings that Hannibal and Mao Zedong are different.
First they both had the different main objective for fighting. Hannibal fought for Carthaginian, but Mao fought for Regime change in his country. Second, the result in the final were opposite. Mao Zedong was successful. He can defeat the government, and be the leader of his country. He forced the old president and his henchman to live in the small island of the country (That is, Taiwan), but unfortunately, Hanniba didn't have enough menpower and supplies because of many years and many battles. Hannibal was forced to withdraw into the Italian country side, and sailed back to his
home.
One of the similarities between two civilizations in terms of religion affect political hierarchy would be how did the kings keep their power. First of all, most of the emperors of China started out as a general in the military and that is the same for the Aztecs because they believed that the best warrior shall be the ruler of the Aztecs. In order for the Aztec rulers to stay in power, they eat human flesh and the human heart just like their gods. They do this so they can be seen more like and god or more superior than the regular citizens. In China, they do not eat human flesh nor do they do anything to please their gods instead they follow the ways of the Mandate of Heaven and do the things that a good emperor or “son of heaven” should do. They are similar because they do things to make people consider them as partially “god” or a god.
author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.
When comparing different societies in ancient history you may not think that Han China and Ancient Rome had a lot in common. These two great societies had many similarities and differences, especially in their social structures. These similarities and differences are all due to Han China’s and Ancient Rome’s governments, family structures and religions. Both of these wonderful empires lasted for approximately 400 years and had lasting effects on the lands they conquered.
Hannibal is, perhaps, most notable for moving from Iberia over the Pyrenees, across the Alps and into northern Italy with an estimated army of 38,000 soldiers and war elephants braving the harsh climate and terrain, the guerilla tactics of the native tribes and commanding an extremely lingual-diverse army. He was a distinguished tactician, able to determine his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and coordinate his battles accordingly. He also wasn’t above making allies when the time called for it, winning over many allies of Rome in the process during his 15-year invasion before a Roman counter-invasion of North Africa forced ...
Martin Niemoller was trying to show everyone that read his poem what Hitler was creating and doing to the country. He was trying to get people to see the harm in what Hitler was standing for, how people might not have cared when he came for all of the jews and communist and others, but how all of their thoughts would change when Hitler came for them.
The difference between Mao and Stalin is that Mao’s view and ideas stayed long after he died, while Stalin’s view and ideas did stick for so long. Even though there were millions of deaths, Mao was able to put an end to some of the awful things they did, such as foot binding (Wood, 8, 30). World revolution did not work out in the end, and Mao’s worldview was not complete Stalinization. He launched the Hundred flowers campaign to ensure that complete Stalinization would not
Mao Zedong was a very influential man in history. He forever changed the face of Chinese politics and life as a whole. His communist views and efforts to modernize China still resonate in the country today. Jonathan Spence’s book titled Mao Zedong is a biography of the great Chinese leader. Spence aims to show how Mao evolved from a poor child in a small rural village, to the leader of a communist nation. The biography is an amazing story of a person’s self determination and the predictability of human nature. The book depicts how a persuasive voice can shape the minds of millions and of people. It also shows the power and strength that a movement in history can make. This biography tells an important part of world history-the communist takeover of China.
...n a caste system, they are truly the same in one thing: they are both very great leaders that influenced China and India until today. They were both very creative with their ideas and had different motives and knew how to get what they believed in through to people all over their nations. Leaders today such as Barack Obama can learn a lot from these two influential leaders. From Mao they can certainly learn different strategies for war and such, as well as how to develop their country towards the better. From Gandhi, leaders can learn how to get what they want with peace and kindness, while simultaneously learning that independence is possible through peace, which even leaves a bright stain of Nationalism to go with it. Mao and Gandhi both had a lot to offer, and they both expressed themselves in different, but effective ways that changed China and India forever.
The Han dynasty and the Roman Empire were both powerful empires during their era. However, the ways they obtained their power varied greatly because they used different methods that involved their political structures, which revolved around their centralized governments. The Han dynasty and the Roman Empire acquired very unique techniques that allowed them to control social and political. For example, the Han dynasty adopted a religion known as Confucianism, which monitored everything in the lives of the Chinese. Contrary, the Roman Empire established a monarchy but allowed its residents more freedom as compared to the Han. Nevertheless, the two empires were similar in political structures in that the power was depended on the wealthy that were in authority, the peasants struggled with their lives because of concerning issues such as food supply. The empires were able to create and preserve a peaceful and sustainable lives for a long time, unlike the past empires. Social distribution were under the control of the wealthiest and they could effortlessly impact community viewpoints and interactions among the residents. These two empires existed during the Classical Period had comparable and various social, political, religions, as well as economical values and practices. However, they both possessed differences and similarities in their economic and social perspectives even though the two empires were established around the same era.
During the periods of the Pax Sinica and the Pax Romana, the Han Chinese and the Roman Empire were alike in politics (both had a bureaucratic government), but differed in religion (Confucianism vs. polytheistic practices) and engineering (while both developed highly groundbreaking technology such as paper and running water, Han China made advances in practicalities, while Rome made advances in sophisticated daily living.)
While Imperial Rome and Han China are homogenous in various measures in government, religion and their social structure, they are also contrasting with them as well.
As two historical giants, Stalin and Mao Ze-dong must be involved at the mere mention of the Sino-Soviet relationship. The relation between the two states leaders draws the outline of the basic structure of Sino-Soviet relations. In the memory of the generation of 1950s to 1970s, there usually five portraits were hung in public, which were Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Ze-dong, even in Tian An Men’s lobby, as the leaders of International Communist Movement and the greatest teachers of the revolution. To be honest, for the generation of 1950s to 1970s, Marx, Engels and Lenin could be ‘deity’ who were in the distance, but Stalin and Mao were alive in the same world, and they were real mentors. Both of them were the revolutionary leaders, and both had distinct characters, as same as common, both men own the merits, the weaknesses, the temper and the natural instincts. During the long-term contact between Stalin and Mao, they left many fascinating stories, and numerous profound lessons. With the same communism belief, Stalin helped Mao fight for sovereignty in China, and provided actively various kinds of weapons, such as canons, tanks, rifles and machine guns, and tried to give useful idea and constructive advice. Two such extraordinary person met, friendship developed with contradiction. They were communists, and also they were leaders of different countries. As leaders of distinct sovereignty states, Stalin and Mao usually care much about their countries’ interests. In other words, Stalin and Mao were strategic partners. After Stalin was attacked in the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Mao talked about repeatedly that Stalin tricked China four times and forbade Ma...
Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln are undeniably two men who made history through their leadership expeditions on their respective nations. When comparing the two, one key aspect of how they made history comes into mind: their assassination. Hence, comparing the assassination of an American president to that of Julius Caesar reveals both similarities and differences. Ultimately, the major of comparing the two is through the similarity between the two assassinations. In this case, they were carried out by people who disagreed with Lincoln and Caesar’s authority and power, and how they used this power and authority.
The rebellion Mao claims to have manifested might have distanced Mao physically from his family but, traditional Chinese values were deeply ingrained, shaping his political and personal persona. His father's harshness with dealing with opposition, his cunning, his demand for reverence from subordinates, and his ambition were to be seen in how Mao demanded harmony, order, and reverence as a ruthless dictator. Yet, Mao, was also the kindly father figure for the people of China, as manifested in characteristic qualities of Mao's mother: kindness, benevolence, and patriarchal indulgence.
The life of Julius Caesar is comparable to the life of Abraham Lincoln in a variety of ways. While unique similarities exist in the lives of these two men, distinct differences also exist. Abraham Lincoln was an orator; Julius Caesar a notable author of Latin prose. They were both leaders. Nowadays, people look up to them as heroes. They shared a significant amount of power in their respective nations. Both men were assassinated. Although a little similar, the manner of assassination of Julius Caesar was quite different from that of Abraham Lincoln. The Roman leader and the U.S. President both came from a different era; their backgrounds were also different.