The Twelve Leaders Of The Hierarchy

Suetonius was born around 68-9 AD, possibly in Hippo Regius (Suetonius xviii). His mentor described him as ‘scholarly and honorable’ and many held him in high regard (xix). Suetonius completed The Twelve Caesars sometime during the 120s during the peak of his career (xxiii). Suetonius conveys his opinion of each emperor indirectly through how he portrays their vices and virtues. According to Suetonius, a Roman leaders good and bad qualities included their military successes, relations with the citizens of Rome, mental stability, and private relationships. Suetonius believed that Augustus embodied many of the characteristics of a good leader.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

Almost all governments during the 16th and 17th centuries were absolute monarchies. These monarchs caused a lot of controversy because the people they were residing over believed that it was unfair for them to not have a say in the government. This caused many people to look at at absolute monarchs as tyrannical because they did not like the way that they chose to rule. This period of absolutism caused people to look at monarchs as tyrannical because the people believed that they saw themselves as equal to God, did not listen to their people, and because they thought only they knew how to lead.

There are many ways to define leadership, but perhaps the most laconic as well as accurate definition is presented in Peter G. Northouse's Leadership: Theory and Practice book (Northouse, 2013, p.5): "Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal". Individuals, engaged in leadership, use influence to solve challenges, which the groups under their leadership face, in order to succeed in their common goals.

This essay will be discussing chapter 2 which is Elizabeth and Akbar, chapter 4 Kangxi and Louis XIV, chapter 8 Bismark and Ito and chapter 10 Hitler and Stalin. This essay will discuss each one of the leaders in the chapters and how they came to power, how they ruled the people, and how they dealt with outside forces. This essay will also talk about how all these leaders had deal with governmental change and how they dealt with it.

The government was a problem because the king held too much power. " He made and enforced the laws. He could declare war and make peace. He levied taxes and spent the people's money as he saw fit (Document 1)." He also controlled expression using censorship.

They felt that the armies and the policies was based on a web of a king who is Childish self-centered egotistical and pretty rare not a

Thesis: Rulers during the period from 1450 to 1750 viewed themselves ruling with God’s name and have great power and diverse methods to rule their lands, and they are expected to do everything for their people and have great diplomatic policies.

Voting was also a problem during this period. King Louis XVI was not making the voting fair to all citizens. He was favoring the “rich”

-With the idea of passing down positions through family ties, the rulers/ families in power were so strong and powerful that there was much wealth and success in the armies. The absolute power stayed with families who knew how to use it, so it made it very strong.

For over 5,000 years of human civilization, there has always been a need for societal structure and stability. People developed governments in order to guarantee that structure and stability are present within the region. While there are various forms of government, some are more effective than others. Yet the effectiveness of that form of government is mostly dictated by the time period it is being used in. Even though democracy is widely regarded as the best form of government in the 21st century, the same cannot be said for the 17th and 18th centuries. The most effective form of government for the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe is absolutism because of the power of religious unity, the importance of fear, and the focus of the overall well-being of the state.

This was a method of political control because of the ability and power of a single leader to quickly squash rebellion and dissent. In the case of Rome, Generals often had armies more loyal to a leader than to the state. This led to a constant struggle for power that nearly destroyed the empire. Octavius, a relative of Julius Caesar, officially established a military dictatorship that would last until the transition of the Roman empire to the Byzantine empire. In the Han dynasty, or the series of monarchs of the same extended family, monarchs had absolute control and there was much vying and contest between families to get the person on the throne that would do the most good for their family.

Throughout time there have been a variety of leaders, who all had different leading types. Some have been more in control, others more relaxed, some had less power, other had more. Regardless, there are qualities in leaders that are more desirable than others. It is clear throughout history that the most desirable qualities in ancient leaders was tolerance. Part of what made tolerance such an important quality is what it did for the citizens under the emperor’s rule.

Amid the ancient and medieval age, we see that a leader or a group played the important role as the leader of a chain. When comparing and contrasting the way a king’s or group’s role is played in the ancient age and medieval age, we find differences, particularly when it comes to how they rule the kingdom. But we also find similarities in the way they treated their community and the power they hold. Thus, the king or group was considered the most important voice that brought about change in laws, social order, and government.

they were attached to the centre of power, because they influenced the king more than