People say, Odysseus lacks the ethnicity or lacking the common leadership skills. It is said that Odysseus was also very dishonest. In the end, yes no leader is perfect, but the best is Odysseus. Wouldn’t you give up anything and everything to save your family?
The audience could say this makes him unfit to lead. This argument is not valid, because we see that his being a ruler of Rome and having no bad feelings between him and his fellow leaders allows them to win in the end. They work together to bring justice, and without justice there is disorder. And when you are a leader, disorder can turn others against you. This is why this is not a weakness or flaw that interferes with him being a loyal, strategic, respectful, and intelligent leader in the story of Julius
They intentionally discriminated against a group of people; they had no regards to other’s statuses as human beings which in our honest opinion is extremely unethical. Every human being should be treated with respect regardless of their culture, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Johnny's leadership roles within his school simply doesn’t convince us that he was bullied into discriminating others, so we feel that he too should face the consequences. As a leader he should have known better. Johnny complained of being bullied into participating, however, his participation in the discriminatory acts is considered
Following the departure of the Persians from Greece, Sparta attempted to prevent the rebuilding of Athens’ walls. It was suspicious of the Long Wall project, which would fortify the route from the city to the harbour of Piraeus. However, the Spartans were rebuffed by Themistocles, who stated that Athens would see herself as an equal partner in the alliance between the two states. Afterwards, in 464 BC, when an earthquake in Sparta caused the helots to revolt, various Spartan allies, including Athens, sent forces to help quell the rebellion. However, the Spartans, fearing that Athens would side with the helots and turn against them, dismissed the Athenian force upon its arrival, while allowing the forces of other allies to remain.
Alexander had a cruel and a somewhat good side at times. Alexander the Great wasn’t really a great leader/king after all. Even though he had conquered many lands at his time, that doesn’t mean that he should have been given the title “the Great.” A king respects his people and doesn’t do cruel actions in order to get what he wants, even though his father was a king, that doesn’t mean that he should have become one too; his father had achieved a lot but never got the same title that Alexander got. Alexander was a selfish person, who was hard to please, even when people were doing everything for him since he was their king.
There are two characters in the play who killed Caesar for different purposes: one for the good of himself, one for the good of others. Shakespeare criticized selfish people in society by comparing Brutus with Cassius. Cassius murdered Caesar for his own personal benefit; he didn’t consider the happiness of the citizens and brought a destructive civil war. On the other hand, Brutus is a noble man; he considered the happiness of others and tried to save Rome from being ruled by a dictator. According to the play, we should have more concern on others and consider the group
Adams argument is another critical aspect into understanding the legacy of Caligula. The fact that Caligula was basically raised to understand ‘power’ as being an absolute entity, was dangerous in Roman aristocratic society. Caligula was simply acting the way he believed one should rule, especially when everyone was seemingly out to get him. However, aristocrats saw his acts as threatening, they wished to discredit him as best they could, and end up killing him over basically having the wrong upbringing.
He basically a standard robber baron for the time. The only reason that some people think he was a hero was because he would trick the public or every once in awhile do something good. Andrew Carnegie was a man that cared more about money then other people. This is just one of the many reasons that makes Andrew Carnegie not a
Montag did was he thought was right according to him because Montag thought that he was protecting himself and Faber, killing him to give society a chance to change, and because Beatty did not want to live anymore. This could relate to our society now days with what our thoughts are with situations and decisions being morally right or wrong. People have different a different view and perspective on certain things but Montag’s view on this situation was that he needed to kill Beatty for many different
I debated the idea for a while but I knew they were right Caesar was to ambitious and if he ever reached his goal he could become very dangerous for Rome. I Brutus was not about to sit by and watch as Rome fell into ruin because of another tyrant. My ancestor made sure to put an end to the line of tyrants that had ruled Rome and to let another rise to power would make their achievements for a better Rome worth nothing.
However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power.
Alexander demanded that people blend cultures against their will, punished civilizations that refused to surrender and tricked people into thinking that he cared about his army. Some say he was involved in his own father’s death because Alexander wanted the crown. He did horrific things in order to succeed earning him the common title “Alexander the Great.” People would stop calling him by this false name if they knew the real roots of Alexander’s story. All in all, some people might think that Alexander was a great leader, but his greatness is actually a
Washington’s alarm and disapproval was so great that the events of Shay’s Rebellion convinced him to come out of retirement. Other elite figures saw Shay’s Rebellion in a similar light to Washington’s opinion. They saw it as a call for a stronger central government. Thomas Jefferson was one of the few elite figures who did not object to Shay’s Rebellion saying “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Overall, Washington and other elite figures did not support Shay’s Rebellion.
It 's a story about being courageous and facing your fear head on even if the outcome was bad. Although, he probably did not expect to go down in history and for people to be hearing about him for thousands of years after what did he expect. The King even loved Beowulf as a son. How many kings really loved their own sons to give them everything they had? From the myths, I have read not very many.
Alexander the Great is one of the most famous people in our world’s history. He achieved great challenges no other man could do. Alexander himself said, “There is nothing impossible to him who will try.” His achievments prove this quote without a doubt. Alexander of Macedon was born in 356 BCE to King Philip and his wife Olympia.