Comparing Alexander The Great And Ivan IV Of Russia

Back in the monarchy day, where an entire nation is rule by a person, either a King or a Queen. People assuming that every single ruler have to be kind and set a good example to their people. However, in the four excerpt of the “Prince”, written by Machiavelli Niccolo, a diplomat and political theorist, to send a message to Lorenzo de’ Medicito on how to be a successful prince. Machiavelli express in an understand tone that to be a good ruler it is necessary to be both evil and good by using a compound-complex sentence with negative adjectives, reality example and visuality imagery.

Alexander achieved more noteworthy deeds than most of the rulers who had lived before him, but additionally, the individuals who were to come later down to our time. Alexander the Great was conceived at Pella Macedonia in 356 B.C.E. He spent his adolescent years watching his dad changing Macedonia into an extraordinary military force. His Father was King Phillip and his mother was Olympias. His mom was the rule of neighboring Epirus. She was a profoundly otherworldly woman who taught her child about his predecessors, for example, Achilles and Hercules. From his most punctual age, he was molded for victory and eminence in being a lord. He then got to be centered on turning into an extraordinary ruler, which he soon would get to be.

Many great leaders have ruled throughout history, but what made them great? Throughout the ages many very intelligent men have sought to enlighten the world on how to best govern their people. Many of these ideas were written down in great literary works, including: Plato’s “The Republic”, Marcus Aurelius “Meditations” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Plato Sculpted his ideal society with his philosopher king at the head. Marcus Aurelius lead by example as the poster child for stoicism. Machiavelli on the other hand broke away from Plato’s ideal society and placed the strong above all others with his real politik. While these men were all very intelligent and sought the same goal of security, there can only be one victor. The best way to govern a people is the Machiavellian way, his methods are based on historical events, his methods were proven effective and they are based on realism.

Niccolò Machiavelli suggested in The Prince that a ruler should behave as both a fox and a lion, being both loved and feared. There are clever rulers who were strategic, courageous rulers who were effective, and successful rulers who possessed both qualities. Elizabeth I of England and Henery IV of France were two great rulers from Europe that were able to personify Machiavelli 's advice.

Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible are both well know Russian Tsars. Both Russian rulers killed many of their own people but Peter the Great was a much better ruler because the second half of Ivan’s reign was characterized by political instability and atrocities committed by Ivan’s personal guard the Oprichnina while Peter continued to better the Russian state.

Author and philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, in the excerpt from his book, “The Morals of the Prince”, describes the different ways of being a successful prince. Machiavelli’s purpose is to show readers how hard he life of a prince really is. He adopts an informative tone in order to convey to his audience that princes are only human and they will be criticized for every little thing. Machiavelli effectively convinces his audience of what makes a good prince through the use of formal diction, appealing to ethos, and appealing to logos.

Compare and contrast the social and economic policies of Alexander II (1855-81) and Alexander III (1881-94) of Russia.

Although they were father and son, the reigns of Alexander II and Alexander III took off in completely different directions. Alexander II was committed to his empire by vowing to reform Russia, making it more in line with nineteenth-century western society. His son, on the other hand, was the unprepared tsar, whose actions were literally reactions to his father’s unexpected assassination. Consequently, Alexander II went down in history as much more productive in the field of domestic policy; in dealing with revolutionaries; and in his foreign policy than his son Alex III would ever be.

Arguably, the most Machiavellian leader to ever exist would be Joseph Stalin. He abided by three major Machiavellian methods that were stated in the Prince: the ends justifies the means, crush any opposition, and displaying a false character. Stalin had a plan for Russia and did everything in his power to achieve that plan. He wanted to transform Russia into a industrial superpower, a military superpower, and a political superpower. To achieve his goals he committed many horrible crimes against humanity. To be more specific, Stalin killed more than sixty million people during his reign. He was a selfish cold-blooded, heart less, and evil leader; human life was nothing to him. What caused him to develop such evil traits? It all started

For my comparison essay, I have chosen to compare Julius Caesar to Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Both men were rulers of their country at different times in life. Julius Caesar was the ruler of Ancient Rome, and Czar Nicholas was a ruler of Russia. Julius Caesar was the ruler during 46-44B.C., and Czar Nicholas was the ruler of Russia during the year 1894 until his forced abdication in 1917. Both were dictators, but only Nicholas II was forced in abdication when he would not respond to demands of the Russians.

Tsar Alexander II and III while father and son had very different ambitions as Tsar and different view for the future of the empire. Alexander III succeeded to his father’s throne in 1894. His reign is looked upon by most historians as a time of repression that saw the undoing of many of the reforms carried out by his father. Certainly that was a time of great economic and social change but these had led, in the West of the nation, great pressure on political system. However Alexander was deeply suspicious of the direction in which his father had taken Russia and the internal reforms that he instituted were designed to correct what he saw as the too-liberal tendencies of his father's reign.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Machiavelli goes on in Chapters Fifteen through Twenty Three to discuss his advice to the reader in the ideal behavior and characteristics of a prince. He mentions that doing good would only lead to the ruin of a prince’s kingdom. He claims that a prince should be stingy and cruel as opposed to generous and merciful. He then, of course, adds in examples of successful rulers who were both moral and immoral alike. A prince should break promises more than he keeps them, according to the author. He also suggests that, while behaving in the aforementioned ways, a prince should do his best to avoid being despised by leaving his subjects’ land and women alone and by undertaking great projects to boost his reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen, a prince should not be “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, [or] irresolute,” (70). ¬¬¬He should also choose wise, as opposed to flattering, advisors.

Throughout class one of the major themes has been what qualities make the best possible ruler. Two of my favorite philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, although very different both attempt to give an answer of what makes a good ruler. Plato’s Philosopher King and Machiavelli’s Prince share their similarities and differences, but in the end Machiavelli paints a more realistic picture of a ruler which makes his prince more favorable.