Ideal ruler

In the Aeneid, Aeneas is the hero or protagonist of the story. He is the son of a Trojan prince, Anchises, and the goddess of love, Venus. Virgil portrays him as this hero by using his characteristics of that of an ideal roman ruler. Virgil shows that Aeneas is this ruler by how he respects his prophecy and destiny despite emotional conflicts, his value to his family and people, and his tough personality. Aeneas shows his ability to be unhappy to fulfill his destiny. He keeps his fate with the gods

The Rule of St. Benedict and Beowulf both provide images of an ideal ruler and an ideal subject. For the Rule of St. Benedict, they are the good abbot and the proper monk. In Beowulf, the good warrior-king and the loyal members of his warrior band. These images of the ruler and subject of each book are very similar and different as well as show the bad view of rulers and subjects and the books show the value systems of those writing the texts. These pieces of literature, how different they may seem

Ideal Characteristics of Plato’s Guardians The characterisitics of the ideal guardian is summarized in those words by Socrates in the second book of the Republic : “[H]e who is to be a really good and noble guardian of the State will require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength. . .” Swiftness and strength is deemed necessary as the guardian is to be like a well-bred watchdog, who ought to be “quick to see, and swift to overtake the enemy when they see him, and strong

rule over their subjects. The greater authority would be the territorial rulers, which was the Kings, Princes, Queens, or Dukes that became the focal point of decision-making in the territory. The territorial rulers wanted to defend their territory, and so, they needed more revenues to fund for wars. Moreover, wars were crucial in that period, as they were becoming bigger and more expensive. The only way that territorial rulers could gain revenue was from its subjects such as the towns, villages, churches

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is a book that examines the qualities and strategies required for a ruler in order to maintain power. Despite being composed in the 16th century, the ideas presented are applicable even to mythical kings from texts over a thousand years ago. Throughout the story of Seneca’s Oedipus, substantial connections could be made between Oedipus and The Prince’s ideas of rule, such as methods in acquiring principalities, channeling subjects’ fear, the use of cruelty and controlling

idea of centre is used to depict colonisation where a coloniser becomes a centre to the margin that the colonised are made into. The idea of the centre was not only geographical, but also, political and social. The centre is geographically where the ruler(s) resides. Politically, centre is the entity with which/whom, power rests. Socially, the opinion makers are considered the centre. During colonisation, the coloniser becomes the most power politically. The coloniser is the opinion maker, and, geographically

potential consequences determines decision-making) and realistic. Using primary evidence from Plato’s The Republic and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince as well as an examination of controversial leaders like Donald Trump, I will argue that Machiavelli’s ruler traits to a state are superior to Plato’s since they are more realistic of human nature of political actors. PLATO’S LIVED WORLD: SETTING CONTEXT Plato lived in Ancient Athens through the Peloponnesian War and a tyrannical government. After The Thirty

disorder to a community and keep it obedient and prosperous than to let it fall to disorder and tyranny. Therefore, the acts of immorality that a ruler does to accomplish this are justifiable means to the more important end of securing power to maintain order.      Machiavelli is a supporter of popular rule, though in an indirect way. Rulers must please their constituents but not give them power. For if the people feel they have power they will rebel against their leader and cause

Rohan Baishya HUEN 1010 – Dr. Brooks Short Paper #2 Due 03/20/17 In The Education of Cyrus, Xenophon addresses a critical query immediately in questioning how one can rule over human beings without opposition or revolt. Xenophon initially reasons that no regime can effectively do that, but after seeing the education and life of Cyrus, he argues that ruling all others without revolution is not only plausible, but “not even difficult if done with knowledge.” Through his education and virtues, Cyrus

The Sovereign activities total expert and is not bound by any law, he as a man remains outside law. The savant Thomas Hobbes supported such a general public, saying that a general public would be better on the off chance that it had one supreme ruler as he would be allowed to pick and do what he supposes is best for the general public without considering the suppositions of others. To start with, it is vital to characterize the two frameworks. A legislative framework ruled by men is any framework