times finally ensuring France was not punished, only Napoleon Bonaparte for directing France into conquering Europe. His affection for a once dominant and destructive power, responsible for governmental changes, aristocratic revolutions, bloody wars and large loses of life, and lastly the definitive sovereign attention demanded by Napoleon’s presence bewildered the powers at the Congress of Vienna. If countless revolutionaries, King Louis XIV, Marie Antionette and rioters in the street can be executed, why would the leader who was responsible for nearly wiping out an entire generation of people in Europe walk away after defeat and be provided luxuries in exile? Many speculated Alexander I never disliked Napoleon Bonaparte but respected what …show more content…
Alexander I was a ruler who was thrust into power prior to accepting the fact he was to rule Russia. Deciding to side with a coup attempt which left his father Paul I murdered and him crowned in 1801, Alexander had to battle his own government to take full control. Then comes Napoleon Bonaparte and France realizing Europe is not big enough for the both and decides to form an alliance after defeating Russia in battle. Was Alexander I a great leader who felt it possible to dethrone Napoleon and free Europe and Russia from tyranny? Without Napoleon, there is no Alexander I but without Alexander I Napoleon remains the conqueror and statesman of Europe. Did Alexander find true Enlightenment after the Battle of Borodino and call on mystics to guide him in liberating Russia from Napoleon? Alexander I suffered great tragedy in his life, however, his greatest triumph as Emperor is stopping Napoleon and attempting to stop Serfdom in his country, blocked by the powers who benefit the most. Clamored by his critics and later turned into a legend in Russian history, Alexander I completed the job he was meant to do, even though it meant sacrificing a happy life and proper rule of Russia and its
The first matter to consider is what constitutes “greatness”. There are no set standards no checklist, to apply to a person, to determine it they are “great.” The simplest way that I could conceive to decide whether this title should apply to Alexander was to determine if he was, in some way, superior to the rulers that came before or after his reign. The most obvious place for me to start my consideration is with Alexander’s vast accomplishments as a conquerer.
Napoleon Bonaparte ruled in France from 1789 to 1815. Napoleon came to power in 1789 and immediately became a powerful figure in the French government. However, some thought Napoleon was such a great leader. The Napoleonic Empire started to grow France’s territories. Some might have believed that Napoleon was too eager with his rule, while losing and failing to succeed against the power of England, in an attempt to blockade their trade, and of Russia, where he led his army to a defeat and retreat back to France. Even in his success over Spain, the battle still costed Napoleon and his army in men and resources. Napoleon was mostly viewed as a powerful and militaristic leader in some aspects, but others saw him as a coward and terrible leader in other ways.
As the revolution calmed, the National Assembly attempted to maintain power; however, Napoleon Bonaparte, an outstanding national general, ousted the newly set republic in a coup d'etat in 1799, imposing himself dictator of France and leading the country to new militaristic heights that prompted French nationalism and the spread of Enlightenment ideas. Even though Bonaparte’s title as a dictator, emperor in 1804, connotates a restricted freedom, he actually took great lengths to enact policies that reflected Enlightenment ideals such as freedom of religion. Bonaparte centralized France’s government and moved to consolidate all of Europe under one nation. Touting Enlightenment ideals where his soldier traveled, Napoleon's conquest set the foundation for the republics of the future.
...y, and more indirectly, the world. Napoleon’s greed got the best of him in the end, tough. It was Napoleon’s boldness to advance and try to take the Russian empire that led to his downfall. No man had ever even considered to bother the sleeping bear that was the Russians. Upon provoking the Russians, his troops were massacred and he was sent into exile. France was set back to its normal borders and the leaders of the conquered states were reseated in power. Yet, Napoleon’s exile did not hold him back. He returned and tried to reclaim his power from the powers that had unseated him. He challenged the authority that had been merciful upon him and sent him into exile. Upon his return, he tried to throw a coup and seize his government once again. It was unsuccessful and he was sent to permanent exile in St. Helena. He later died there, leaving the world forever changed.
One of the most controversial figures in European History, Napoleon Bonaparte has never ceased to be a generator of debate and analysis among historians, authors, and students. Napoleon has been closely scrutinized by many in attempts to defend or demote his motives, ambitions, and actions as Emperor of France. Nonetheless, those with true qualities of a ruler are few and far between – and Napoleon possessed the drive and ambition to bring these qualities to their full potential. Napoleon was the hero of nineteenth-century France, restoring the country to its former glory after the violence, instability, and turmoil of the French Revolution. Napoleon was the classic underdog, originally viewed as a “second-class Frenchman” due to his Corsican origins, but rising to success based on his own hard work and determination. He demonstrated the most improbable capacity for resilience; although he faced defeat on multiple occasions, he persevered and continually refused to surrender. As well, Napoleon was a protector and enforcer of “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité” through the promotion of religious freedom and the nationwide application of French laws throughout his rule.
Napoleon’s “coup d’etat of 18 brumaire was an insurance against both the Jacobin revolution and the Royalist restoration.” The French people expected Napoleon to bring back peace, order and to consolidate the political and social conquests of the Revolution. Napoleon considered these conquests to be “the sacred rights of property, equality and liberty.” If Napoleon gained power with the promise of upholding the principles of the French Revolution, how did he betray the revolution? Many historians argue that Napoleon was an effective but ambitious leader.
...f the conquered territories to remain relatively unchanged, Alexander was able to subdue potential unrest before it occurred. However, Alexander’s rule was not without discord though. Many Machiavellian actions for the good of the empire were seen as unsavory to a select few. While this created some distrust, Alexander’s power and governing expertise were enough to overcome these adversities. Because of the characteristics mentioned above, Alexander the Great is as close to a true Machiavellian ruler as humanly possible.
French Revolution brought a great number of great ideas, but ideas are not beneficial unless they are realized and stabilized. The man to stabilize the concepts of French Revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte. He started out as an Italian general and ended up being one of the greatest historical figures. First, Directors requested Napoleon's support while organizing a coup d'etat. Then, Bonaparte fought Britain in order to benefit France. Lastly, he was called to help creating a new constitution and ended up as the First Consul of France. At home, he ruled using flattery, but also he strongly resisted the opposition. Napoleon is a pro-revolutionist because he denied all the privileges of the aristocracy, created a new constitution, and also established the Napoleonic Code.
Alexander didn’t show any of these characteristics, therefore he doesn’t deserve the title of “great”. The first reason why Alexander lll wasn’t great is because he didn’t show concern for others. In document B it states “Porus’ elephants were now boxed in, and the damage inflicted by them fell on friend no less than foe, with men trampled under as the beast twisted and turned. In document E it states “Years that it took Alexander to build his empire-11 Years that Alexander’s empire held together after his death-10” Alexander the “great” doesn’t show any intelligence because he forgot to make a will with an heir for his empire leaving it confused and aggressive because no one knew who was going to rule.
Alexander the Great:An Analysis Thesis:Alexander the Great is a villain because Alexander the Great murdered and tortured people for no reason,he also took over cities against their own will. Alexander the Great is a villain because Alexander the Great murdered and tortured many people. This man came to civilizations and Alexander the Great took them under his rule,if one did not follow one were tortured. He also killed people just as a warning that Alexander the Great actually wasn't dead. According to Alexander the not so great Paragraph 3 page 2 “Persians also condemn him for the widespread destruction Alexander the Great is thought to have encouraged to cultural and religious sites throughout the empire.”
Alexander the Great is great because of his remarkable achievement which helped to create a long lasting legacy. Alexander started to build his empire in 334 BCE after taking the new role as the king. It only took eleven years to build an empire that was large and lasted several years. In addition, the empire Alexander created stretched over 2,200,000 square miles becoming bigger than the United States (Alexander’s Empire Doc. A) (Alexander’s Legacy Doc, E). This proves that Alexander the Great is great because although the process was eleven long years to make a strong empire, Alexander wasn’t willing to give up and
Few historical figures stand out in the same degree as that of Alexander the Great. He was a warrior by 16, a commander at age 18, and was crowned King of Macedon by the time he was 20 years old. He did things in his lifetime that others could only dream about. Alexander single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in just over a decade. There were many attributes that made Alexander “Great.” He was a brilliant strategist and an inspired leader; he led by example and was a conqueror at heart. In looking at his early childhood, accession to the throne, conquests, marriage, and death one can see why Alexander the Great is revered in historical contexts as one of the greatest figures of all time.
Alexander II has been considered “a great historical figure without being a great man, that what he did was more important than what he was.” ( W.E Mosse) For 26 years, Czar Alexander II ruled russia. During his reign, he made his mark on history by stepping outside of the box and going to extreme measures to help his people. He has been labeled as the “Liberator of tsar” for the ending of serfdom. Czar Alexander II of Russia has made an impact on history because of his interesting background, fatal assassination, and the changes made after his assassination.
Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar set the standard of what a leader should be. However, despite the two leader’s great accomplishments, Alexander the Great is a better leader. Julius Caesar fit the components of being a good leader: an ability to make a good appearance, and an ability to speak well at public gatherings. Caesar was able to change Rome. He dodged outlawing and pirates, changed the calendar and the army, and conquered the area of modern France, and much more in his six years at rule. However, Alexander the Great also held the major three components, and his achievements show that he attempted to adopt democracy. He was considered to have been the foundation of western civilization. Both leaders were betrayed, however Alexander was more betrayed for his good deeds than for his huge weaknesses unlike Caesar. Both leaders are good and influential leaders from their time, but it is Alexander the Great that is better.
There are many leaders in the world, but a great ruler is passionate, honorable and one who can inspire even in the most hopeless circumstances. Alexander the Great was a great ruler. Alexander the Great was a ruler that was not only inspiring, but he was fearless, smart, bold and courageous. Alexander the Great inspired his soldiers to crave more. He has inspired people since the day he started ruling. What is inspirational about Alexander the Great is that he inspired his troops to the point that they did not question him when they were outnumbered three to one in a battle, they trusted him with their lives and were willing to die for him (Alexander the Great: man behind the legend).