Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of different history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
With the third longest reign in Great Britain’s long and illustrious history, King George III’s rule was riddled mishaps, most likely due to the fact that he was illiterate until the age of eleven. The mishaps may also have to deal with the fact that his rule was not considered Machiavellian and were often connected with the fact that they were often exactly contradictory to the writings in The Prince. Due to the way the government was run, the military handled in the wars throughout his reign, and the way he was perceived, King George III of England greatly contradicts Machiavellian’s idea of a great ruler.
As George became the sole ruler of the British empire, he ignored or was ignorant of Machiavelli’s ideas of how to maintain his government and conquered lands. George began to emulate the 3rd Earl of Bute, John Stuart and trusted him as they had very similar opinions without quite thinking twice. Moreover, he also approved the new taxes on colonies that were very heavy
…show more content…
For one, he was neither feared nor loved throughout the entirety of his rule, rather in colonies, he hated and loathed. George’s popularity was also inconsistent because he was not not true enemy or good friend of people. The Machiavellian ways of how to be popular not evident at all which caused American colonies to break away and his subjects. In addition, the Hanover king “relied on fortune” and his mental health significantly decreased after his daughter died and losing the American colonies. Another factor in the madness of King George in his later years was that he was very clingy with his children despite their growing up and eventual leaving. He was not good at letting go of things whether it be land or children which drove him to madness. Overall, the extent of his personal troubles and quirks stopped him from governing to his full
Subsequently, it was appointed to King George III; withal, it was rejected. Obstinacy and greed characterized him, and torment was his specialty. He planned on keeping the “New World” for himself without even considering the outlook from his fellow men. He was not interested in making any type of variation, seeking only for domination. Written in The Olive Branch Petition, there is a line that reads “...your royal authority and influence may be graciously interposed to procure us relief from our afflicting fears and jealousies…” That displays the everlasting fear that lived within the people of the thirteen colonies. The repercussion was The Declaration of Independence and The Revolutionary
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
He suffered from stage fright and often “blushed and faltered”, (18) even at his inauguration as President, “he trembled and several times could scarce make out to read his speech” (18) This weakness of his is often glossed over as it doesn’t seem to fit in with his image as the towering, imposing “founding father”. Yet today, it is essential for a President to be able to deliver impressive and clear speeches to the whole country. Finally there are some criticisms that he was not as effective General as is often believed. Thomas Paine claimed that he was a bad general whose strategy consisted of “doing nothing” (19). Although Paine had a personal agenda in condemning George Washington as he resented not being appointed Postmaster-General, and then later by not being rescued from French persecution by the government, it is true that George Washington did lose more battles than he won (20) and often did seem to do nothing for long periods of time. There is also the issue of his harsh treatment towards his own soldiers, any who were caught deserting or plundering were “flogged” (21) and he even a “Gallows near forty feet high erected” to terrify the rest into obedience.
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
When examining the bloody and often tumultuous history of Great Britain prior to their ascent to power, one would not have predicted that they would become the global leader of the 18th century. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire held much of the power in Europe. Only with the suppression of Catholicism and the development of national sovereignty did Great Britain have the opportunity to rise through the ranks. While much of continental Europe was seeking to strengthen their absolute monarchies and centralized style of governing, in the 17th and 18th centuries Great Britain was making significant political changes that reflected the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment. The first of the political philosophers was Thomas Hobbes who first introduced the idea that the monarch ruled not by “divine right” but through the consent of the people. This was a radical idea with ramifications that are reflected in the great changed Great Britain made to to their government in the 17th century. Through a series of two violent civil wars between the monarchy and Parliament and the bloodless civil war known as the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was granted the authority to, in essence, “check” the power of the monarchy. The internal shifts of power in Great Britain and the savvy foreign policy skills demonstrated by the British in much of the conflict happening in continental Europe can be credited with England’s rise to power.
I wonder whether or not King George III, in his life, knew that people criticized his ideas. I’m sure he did, but I wonder what he thought when he set down laws and taxes. Was he a reasonable man? Did he believe the colonists had the right to argue their points? What made him tax stamps and tea and set down the Intolerable Acts while it angered the colonists? Why did he think it was a good idea to make these laws? My question is: what did he think when he set laws and taxes that most of us now think are ridiculous? I suppose hindsight is 20/20.
When George Washington, the hero of the American Revolution, died on December 14, 1799 the nation was overwhelmed with emotion and mourned not only for days, but for weeks and months over the loss of their patriarch. People all across the country began to organize ceremonies to honor their dead leader. Most Americans looked at George Washington as the symbol of their nation. Washington had become known as the as the father and protector of the young republic. When Washington died many Americans felt that in a sense that the country had just died, because he embodied everything they believed in.
In fact, Machiavelli’s morals are as questionable as those of Ferdinand II. Because Machiavelli believed that “it [was] unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities [he had] enumerated, but it [was] very necessary to appear to have them” (62), Ferdinand II seemed to be an excellent example of the advice given in the book. However, Machiavelli fails to see that Ferdinand II’s actions opposed one of his primary beliefs. Machiavelli specified that princes did not have to avoid cruelty and dishonesty if and only if their actions benefited the state, and that a prince must consider every action he took based on its effect on his country. As previously stated, Ferdinand II’s actions exclusively benefited himself. Considering the fact that this was a principal theme throughout Machiavelli’s book, why he saw Ferdinand II as such a “great and extraordinary” ruler is baffling. His love of the king is as hypocritical as the King’s character. There is a strong possibility that Machiavelli had a bias towards Ferdinand, considering he was the ruler when he wrote The Prince, and Machiavelli did not see his rule’s final outcome. This presents the question of how Machiavelli’s partiality affects his credibility. Provided he did, in fact, have that bias, what does that say about the rest of his work? Since Machiavelli did not have a neutral stance on politics, he may have steered Prince De’ Medici and all other political leaders who read The Prince in the direction of his own opinions, thus singlehandedly shaping history into his
One of the greatest sources of misconception behind British policy during that time is that taxes and regulations were not in place when they actually had been before – they were just never really enforced. Between Britain’s neglect to properly ensure that these policies were followed and the corruption present in America with smuggling, bribing, or circumventing the rules in some other manner, one would not have been likely to realize that policies were indeed in place. It comes as no surprise then that with Parliament’s p...
Lawyer James Otis and other colonist rebels referred to King George as a tyrant. As stated by James Otis in The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1763), . . . “The very act of taxing exercised over those who are not represented appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and if continued seems to be in effect and entire disfranchisement of every civil right.” James Otis’s point of view seemed to express concerns for the civil and constitutional rights and liberties of the colonists.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
We the people have suffered greatly because of the one and only King George III. King George III purposely directed the abuse towards us and many other colonies, but for what? To establish a tyrannical government? To make himself a richer man? What about us? The people. We’ve waited patiently for things to settle down but how can it settle down when you’re excessively taxing us and trying to rule us when we’ve made it crystal clear that we don’t want you and your nonsense tyranny. This man deserves no freedom, no justices. What this man needs is jail time and many years of it. This man is and will forever be guilty.
...writers had changed the way people thought about government and politics in Europe during the early nineteenth century and constructed a way to how people still think now. Machiavelli had brought forward the idea of how using a person’s weakness can benefit a ruler in controlling his state and representing the people of the state inferior to him. This could be seen as putting the monarch’s interest before that of the peoples which in turn could be argued by Locke who had purely the opposite beliefs. Some of Locke’s beliefs could be justified by Marx as the ideology could be seen as capitalism through human investment. Through examples provided from Prince, Second Treatise of Government and The Communist Manifesto it can be said that these philosophers could reach these conclusions about one another from these different ideologies that were presented in each book.
The esteemed patriot and my good friend and neighbor, Samuel Adams, tells me that he has received word from “A Virginian who wrote home from London that King George’s own House of Commons says he is ‘very obstinate’ and ‘shan’t continue to reign with any peaceable conduct toward the colonies’.” (Langguth, 28)
During colonial times, King George III was a tyrant ruler. He was unstable and constantly inflicted hardship upon the people of the American Colonies. King George III thought that imposing more demands on the colonists would allow him to reach his goals such as bringing in more money for the British government. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thought that a ruler needed his subjects to be on his side so that there would be less resistance.