Alexander tortured many of his victims and then he killed them. Another reason why he was a villain because he killed members of his family so that he would become the ultimate successor to the throne. This should never be how a king becomes the ruler of his kingdom, ever. Even though I believe that Alexander the Great is a villain, others may think he was a hero. They may think that because he had conquered so many other nations.
Alexander did not exhibit three characteristics of a good leader that was talked about which is that a good leader should be nonviolent, rational, and unselfish. Alexander handled the people of Persepolis violently. He was also irrational in how he handled other cities along with how he thought of other people without thinking about how his actions may have affected how other people thought of him. Alexander was not only selfish in thinking only of himself to where he caused disgust amongst his men, but he was so selfish to where he even became cruel to his friends. People may say Alexander did good things, but he lacked important characteristics a good leader needs to have to be able to rule their people well and successfully not just as a leader, but a respectable role model to look up
According to Document D, “The Spartans learned to read and write for purely practical reasons: but all other forms of education they banned from the country,...” If an man wasn’t interested in fighting and wanted a strong education, he was simply out of luck since in Sparta, killing others was more important than schooling. The men in Sparta had no choice of their future. Overall, Sparta’s weaknesses outweigh their strengths because they are under a harsh discipline, they are taken from their families without a choice, and education was not a main
Maximus refused to swear his loyalty to Commodus which put a target on Maximus’ back. He realizes that he should’ve taken the offer from the king of Rome earlier instead of waiting to accept because then he may of never been murdered or the people of Rome would’ve already known of the decision of the new king. Lastly, he was given a fate that was greater than when he deserved. All he ever did was serve Rome and serve the King well. He wanted to keep his family safe and also his men out during the wars they conquered
Atreus is so hungry for revenge and power, it defeats his ability to reason. Atreus decides to trick Thyestes into eating his own sons as payback. Atreus is not satisfied with just killing Thyestes, he has to completely destroy him to be satisfied. This parallels with Nero, who killed anyone who threatened his power or plotted against him. Nero has his step brother, Britannicus, killed so that his rule was not opposed.
For example, the princes, who see through Richard’s schemes, are murdered by his orders. Therefore, vaulting ambition turns him ruthless
When he demanded goods or men for his great armies, they felt they had to agree. When he demanded they send tributes to honour him, they sent them without question. It was the only way they could stop him going to war with them. But his demands on Athens became too much for them to bear. This hold over the ancient Greek world ended, because one lone man named Theseus stepped in and stopped it.
He ruled each land according to its own traditions and customs. This made his entire empire weaker because they were not fully united. Another obstacle that Charles V faced was the fact that he had no ambition to extend his influence using military force. He collected wealth to maintain an army, but it was only used to put out rebellions and uprisings within the areas he already controlled. The final obstacle that Charles V faced was more of an outside push factor.
Danielle Aldrett Friday only Founding Brothers Assignment Preface: Critics: Defenders: Its focus on giving the people so much power, means that the government may be more vulnerable to being overthrown and just not dependable. Does not focus on strong central nor local government, but on giving the people a voice in their country. They’d have issues developing a system of parties and would have people questioning the systems too much. Avoids the issue of having a monarchy or exaggeratedly powerful ruler, in which they have no say on the laws. The constitution did not take into consideration that the states were barely reuniting and were not known for working together or even being together.
Having a weak central government created a whole new set of problems. After analyzing the Articles of Confederation the weaknesses outnumbered the strengths. Such as states not having to obey the laws and ignore taxations because they had no authority to enforce them. Congress did not have the power to collect taxes from the each of the states, that was one major weakness especially during the Revolutionary War because instead of getting the money they had to ask the states for money and the states said no. At that point the government should have put their foot down and enforced a new law, their troops were fighting for their freedom and these people didn’t care.Instead the government in response had no money to pay for the war so they printed money causing inflation and soon money became worthless.
While there were many disagreements at the Constitutional Convention, the idea of a monarchy was not desired by any of the intelligent men at the convention. Without being directly spoken, all who showed their presence, knew that a monarchy was not an option for this new government. They had come from the strict ruling of kings and queens in Britain, and no longer wished to have a monarchy as the head of their government. Despite the fact of their two opposing views, a
With each government interference, Kinzer seems to only point out where they went wrong. He simply doesn’t give America enough credit. The first section of Overthrow explains “regime changes” based on imperialistic grounds. Because of this of this reason, the U.S. seemed to have no business overthrowing governments and could not handle them. However, he fails to realize how all of this is largely understandable.
The real question is were the Greeks very democratic? I really do not think the Greeks were democratic at all. They really didn’t exemplify true qualities of a Democratic City-State. The next few paragraphs will show the reason behind my answer, and how people were treated unfairly. My first reason behind this is the Athenian government only granted citizenship to men who parents were free-born Athenian parents.