Ivan IV was the first tsar of Russia who ruled in the mid to late 16th century. He helped create a centralized government by acquiring vasts amounts of lands. Ivan IV may seem as a hero for uniting Russia; however, he should be remembered as a villain for his terrible rule of his people and his horrendous character. Ivan IV inherited the power at the age of three, when both of his parents passed away. The boyars or the nobles were dubbed his guardians, and ten years under their rule scarred Ivan which changed him into a cruel and undisciplined person. To demonstrate his authority, “Ivan executed a member of the Shuisky family” ("Ivan IV." World ). This course of action was to help his Glinsky family have more influence. The execution was …show more content…
Ivan IV also goes by the nickname, “Ivan the Terrible,” since his character is one that a villain would have. Even as a young child, Ivan IV could be considered evil, as his boyar guardians “encouraged him to be cruel to animals and people and to engage in every form of debauchery” ("Ivan IV." Encyclopedia). One way that Ivan the Terrible was cruel to animals was that he took delight in throwing animals off the roof. But, he would also form a habit of robbing and beating the people of his capital. It is clear that because Ivan IV was involved in these immoral acts, he should be remembered as a villain. However, these were acts he committed as a child and continued this behavior as an adult. As an adult, Ivan the Terrible, “in a fit of rage lashed out at his 27-year-old son, Ivan Ivanovich, and struck him dead with an iron-pointed staff” ("Ivan IV." Encyclopedia). This shows that even as many years passed by, Ivan was still a villainous person. But, based on what Ivan wrote to Queen Elizabeth, we also know that Ivan is not a man of his words. Queen Elizabeth is the leader of England, who is considered a major trading partner with Russia. However, Ivan is unhappy with their ambassador; therefore, telling the Queen in a letter that “all our letters which we have so far given on trade matters are no longer valid” (Clio). This shows that Ivan IV is a villain for not keeping promises
Prepubescence is an essential period in a child’s development. A person’s environment can alter their personality and affect them in ways that will remain throughout their lives. With Ivan and Charles, it is evident that the conditions they aged in factored into their frame of mind. Ivan, specifically, experienced multiple challenging incidents in his childhood. For example, when Ivan was three years old his father, Vasilly III, fell ill and passed away on February 4, 1533. His father recognized the futility of having an infant king rule a country, so he left a small council of nobles to rule. Similar to Ivan, Charles also had the inconvenience of inheriting the throne too early. Charles was only twelve years old when he was appointed king in September 1380, but he was not allowed to rule at first. In the early years of his reign his father arranged for his four uncles to rule until he was of age. To be entrusted with so much power at such a young age can be very stressful and the lose of a father figure proved to be traumatic in their later years. After Charles’ coronation, documents ceased to mention him until he finally took the throne around age 20. Ivan, on the other hand, devoted his life to education in his early years allowing him to document his experiences. Five years after his father passed away, Ivan’s mother was poisoned and killed. This left him, and his brother Iuri, in the care of the
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
“A leader does not deserve the name unless he is willing occasionally to stand alone” (Kissinger). Two leaders that stood alone by the end of their rules were Adolf Hitler and Ivan IV, or Ivan the Terrible. Ivan the Terrible was crowned the tsar of Russia in 1547 and ruled until he died in 1584. Ivan was known as an evil ruler who accused most of his noblemen of treason, killed thousands of his subjects, and murdered his son. When Ivan the Terrible died, Russia was left in financial and political ruin (Bogatyrev). Adolf Hitler was born in Austria in 1889 but loved Germany. In 1921, Hitler became the leader of the German Worker’s Party, a nationalist and anti-Semitic group, and based the Nazi Party on them. Hitler was dictator of Germany from 1933 until he committed suicide in 1945, and started World War II and the Holocaust while in power (“Adolf Hitler”, Biography.com). Ivan the Terrible and Adolf Hitler showed that people who have a similar impact on the world usually have the same characteristics. Ivan the Terrible and Adolf Hitler were both confident in themselves and in their countries and very paranoid, which caused them to be aggressive rulers willing to do whatever they needed to meet their goals.
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
Throughout history there have been many odd characters. Russian history was not excluded. Grigory Rasputin, who was an assistant to the Royal Russian family, was an unusual man.
One of Russia’s finest leaders was Catherine II. Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great was a leader who used her power to benefit Russia for advancement in the future and to lead Russia to be one of the most successful countries in Europe at that time. Catherine ruled the Russian Empire from 1762 until her death in 1796, she was very focused on the political and foreign advancements of the Russian Empire. Much of what she did during her rule in the late 1700’s has assisted Russia in the advancements that they have made as a country today. Catherine II was good to her people and also cared very much about their rights, she developed laws to assist the people and to further benefit Russia as a nation.
In 1513, an Italian politician by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli distributed, though privately, a political treatise called The Prince. This treatise was, essentially, a guide on how to effectively rule one's country. It's important beforehand to define exactly what a Machiavellian is, before describing one. A Machiavellian is a leader who, through his power and influence, works toward the common good of his people. This can be done through fear, through deceit, even through manipulation. It is important to understand the main principle of a Machiavellian; the end justifies the means. The end being the common good of his people. Vladimir Putin is a Machiavellian in the ways he retains power, institutes reform, and executes economic recovery domestically; and also in the ways he manages international affairs, such as the issues with Syria, Snowden, and the 2014 Winter Olympics.
One of the things that affected Ivan’s death was the feeling of lioness because none of his family members cared about him. He became hopeless and stopped fighting the illness he had. Why and how he died isn’t clearly given in the story, but from one’s assumption, he might have had cancer.
In his novella, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Leo Tolstoy satirizes the isolation and materialism of Russian society and suggests that its desensitized existence overlooks the true meaning of life—compassion. Ivan had attained everything that society deemed important in life: a high social position, a powerful job, and money. Marriage developed out of necessity rather than love: “He only required of it those conveniences—dinner at home, housewife, and bed—which it could give him” (17). Later, he purchased a magnificent house, as society dictated, and attempted to fill it with ostentatious antiquities solely available to the wealthy. However, “In reality it was just what is usually seen in the houses of people of moderate means who want to appear rich, and therefore succeed only in resembling others like themselves” (22). Through intense characterizations by the detached and omniscient narrator, Tolstoy reveals the flaws of this deeply superficial society. Although Ivan has flourished under the standards of society, he fails to establish any sort of connection with another human being on this earth. Tragically, only his fatal illness can allow him to confront his own death and reevaluate his life. He finally understands, in his final breath, that “All you have lived for and still live for is falsehood and deception, hiding life and death from you” (69).
This point of the story is indirectly brought out in the very beginning when Ivan's colleagues, and supposedly his friends, learn of his death. The narrator states in paragraph 5:
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.
“The Death of Ivan Ilych” is a classic piece of Realist Literature. It was written by the Russian author, Leo Tolstoy. Realist Writers were known for their works being about plain ordinary people(Textbook). Realist writers wrote more about the outcast of society such as the lower class(Textbook). “The Metamorphosis” was written by Franz Kafka.
We are all condemned to death; it is inescapable. Even if a person doesn’t believe in the concept of destiny, it is undeniable that every person is fated to die at some point. Most people, however, are not aware of when exactly the inevitable will approach. Often in works of fiction, the reader, or sometimes even the character, is aware of their fate. There are many different understandings of destiny, which is one of the reasons why it has played such a large role in so many different literary works throughout the world and history. Fate is one of the principal literary devices used in Homer’s epic poem, The Iliad, Shakespeare’s tragic play, Antony and Cleopatra, and Tolstoy’s pedagogical novella, The Death of Ivan Ilych.
In Leo Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich, the story begins with the death of the title character, Ivan Ilyich Golovin. Ivan's closest friends discover his death in the obituary column in chapter one, but it is not until chapter two that we encounter our hero. Despite this opening, while Ilyich is physically alive during most of the story's action he only becomes spiritually alive a few moments before his death.