Attila the Hun
Although he reigned no more than 20 years as king of the Huns, the image of Attila in history and in the popular imagination is based upon two aggressive military campaigns in the last two years of his life which threatened to dramatically redirect the development of Western Europe.
Attila and his brother succeeded their uncle as leaders of the Huns in 434, with Attila in the junior position until his brother’s death 12 years later. History has it that Attila killed him or hired someone to do the job. Attila embarked immediately upon a series of wars extending the Hun rule from the Rhine, across the north of the Black Sea as far as the Caspian Sea. From that base he soon began a long series of negotiations with the capital of the Roman Empire at Constantinople in the East and Ravenna in the West.
Finally, Attila forged an alliance with the Franks and Vandals and in the spring of 451 he unleashed a long-threatened attack into the heart of Western Europe. After pillaging a broad swath of cities in his path, he was close to obtaining the surrender of Orleans when the combined Roman and Visigoth armies arrived and forced Attila’s retreat to the northeast.
Near Troyes the opposing forces joined battle at Chalons in one of the decisive battles of European history. Though the margin of victory was slim, the Western army prevailed, precipitating Attila’s withdrawal back across the Rhine and avoiding a decisive shift in the course of political and economic development in Western Europe. Attila’s adventures in the West had not ended, however. In the following year he launched a devastating campaign into Italy.
Little is known of Attila’s early life. Only that most people associate him as being a cruel leade...
... middle of paper ...
...er his wedding day he was found dead, drowned in his drunken ness. The empire of the Huns dissipated nearly as fast as its famous leader. In 454 the Germanic tribes revolted against the Huns, and the sons of Attila, who had quarreled among themselves, could not deal with the crisis. In a sense, the Huns were defeated.
To his disadvantage Attila probably felt that he was invincible. He not only distrusted his sons to become successor he failed to even choose a one.
One of the quotes that I thought fit Attila the Hun was this, “No republic will ever be perfect if she has not by law provided for everything, having a remedy for every emergency, and fixed rules for applying it. And therefore I will say that those republics which in time of danger cannot resort to a dictatorship, or some similar authority, will generally be ruined when grave occasions occur.”
Hannibal is, perhaps, most notable for moving from Iberia over the Pyrenees, across the Alps and into northern Italy with an estimated army of 38,000 soldiers and war elephants braving the harsh climate and terrain, the guerilla tactics of the native tribes and commanding an extremely lingual-diverse army. He was a distinguished tactician, able to determine his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, and coordinate his battles accordingly. He also wasn’t above making allies when the time called for it, winning over many allies of Rome in the process during his 15-year invasion before a Roman counter-invasion of North Africa forced ...
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny;when the government fears the people,there is liberty” -Thomas Jefferson. The reason why I chose this quote is that the Northern Korean and South Korean civilians were afraid of the government so there was tyranny. Tyranny is cruel and oppressive government or rule.
During Justinian’s reign he was able to conquer and take over many parts of Europe expanding his Byzantium Empire, which was a huge start in reviving Roman Authority. He took back a huge amount of territory that was once belonged to the Roman Empire before Barbarian invasions in fourth and fifth century in Western Europe including Northern Africa and Italy. Justinians vast war against the Persians to the East of Constantinople was a problem for Justinian but after several battles a peace was arranged with fairly equal terms. Justinian then de...
The accounts are particularly detailed and organized, including the names of leaders and kings, as well as those slain in battle. The Vikings are represented as fierce warriors, capable of forming alliances and making peace with outsiders, or taking hostages and being exceptionally ruthless. The Chronicle writes of an incident in A.D. 870, in which the army attacked Medhamsted, reporting that, “They made such havoc there, that a monastery, which was before full rich, was now reduced to nothing” (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). It would seem that the Viking leaders were considerably relentless, acting only on their own interests and self-benefit. It was not uncommon for leaders to make promises to keep the peace and then break faith by fleeing at nightfall after raiding the town. There is also a large focus on the battle against the Danes. It is evident that Alfred the King was greatly admired, as his name, along with his brothers – Ethered (before his demise), is mentioned throughout the excerpt and always in the highest of regards. The Chronicle tells of Alfred’s bravery and cunning as a leader, and it was even said that people “rejoiced to see him” (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) after he rode to
...y the new order he had created. The victor in the struggle, his son Constantinus II, was an Arian, but he was no less committed to the Christianization of the empire than his father. Paganism survived, but only during the short reign of Julian the Apostate was it again represented on the imperial throne.
...g after he gained alliance with Roger Crusade and the Greek empire then began reforming by isolating the hostile German Empire Henry the fifth. Soon after would gain military alliance with the first Lombard league in 1093. A few years later, the Crusades would start in urban its command after many desk came to the end of the dark ages Pope urban the second would soon later die In July 29 1299 in Rome, Italy.
were either executed or send to labor camps. He is said to have killed millions of political opponents.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
What are tyrants, one might ask. In the current sense of the word a tyrant is pejorative term, applied to an individual in power who is selfish and self preserving. A tyrant is an immoral being, ruling over those around him through force, a tax on the freedom of those he subjugates. Yet the question that one should be asking is where do tyrants come from? Plato proposed that tyrants are a product of democracy, that the liberty inherent to a democracy allows the self interested to manipulate the system(generally through appealing to the population at large) causing a system with little liberty. This paper aims to defend the claims of Plato concerning tyranny, particularly the origins of tyrants, as well as to propose the safeguards that democracy possesses to defend against tyranny. The two claims Plato makes that will be discussed here are that tyrants come from popular leaders, that tyrants require sycophants to support and protect them.
Some scholars believe Herod the Great was “one of the most notorious” figures in history to rule as a king. On the other hand, Herod’s life reveals a political leader who should be considered as “brilliant politician,” who successfully dealt with Roman Empire during his whole career. Herod’s success was molded with hardships he experienced throughout his life. As a young man, Herod was accustomed to “hardships,” which helped mold his ironclad character. As a soldier, Herod was “an excellent horseman” as well as an expert with both “lance” and “arrow.” Herod’s determination to excel would mold him as a future leader. As a young man, Herod already “won a reputation” as being a successful military leader. Regardless, one Jewish historian remarked that Herod “was destined” to become an “evil genius” who would rule “the Judean nation”
Syagrius fled to the kingdom of Aralic. In another show of his power, Clovis scarred Aralic into giving Syagrius up or he would be marched on as well. Out of fear, Sygrius was given up to Clovis and secretly killed. This was the beginning of the power and respect that was to come for Clovis.
A fierce group of warriors that had a fervor to overthrow the relentless Roman Empire, would stop at nothing to end the Romans reign of terror over their people. Consisting of Asian and European backgrounds, the Huns were not the people you wanted to see walking down your neighborhood. The insane battle techniques that they had would make you drop to your knees and beg them not to harm you. If you were ever killed by a Hun, your head would be hanging off of him like a trophy. If you were as unlucky as stepping under a ladder while a black cat is crossing you, then you must have felt like the Romans as the Huns stopped by.
...d, yet we kill each other.” We are our own worst predators, which is exactly what happened in Athens. It was their own democracy system that led to their downfall. It was one of the most amazing, revolutionary governments in history, yet too much of it led to poor tactical decisions. A Chinese saying purports too much of a good thing can become a bad thing: "Wu ji be fan". The best government system in ancient history caused its own downfall. When the masses held the power to choose, it resulted in a misinformed choice. On the other hand, when a tyrant holds the power, the government becomes oppressive and abusive. Neither is perfect, and both can be dysfunctional. These individuals have shown us that finding a perfect balance in anything is an ongoing trajectory of trial and error. We may never reach perfection, but with each change we move a little bit closer.
Rourke (2008) points out that the form of government most common throughout the history of man was authoritarian; leaders were an individual or group of people who exercised control. The people these leaders ruled had little opportunity to contribute to t...