Among the 20th century statesmen, Ho Chi Minh was one of the most influential political leaders who pursed his goal of Vietnamese independence. Ho Chi Minh’s remarkable ability in coupling communism with nationalism demonstrated to the world what a successful leader he was. The struggle against the French, the United States and the Saigon government conveyed that he was the architect behind the success. He was described as 'Uncle Ho,' an epithet bestowed upon him. On the other hand, people believed that behind the fatherly smile was a diabolical mind that was deceiving the entire world, leading them to believe that he had the country’s best interest in mind.
Based on reading Julius Caesar I learned that neither Marc Antony nor Julius Caesar would make a good president of the United States. I believe Brutus will. Although Marc Antony and Julius Caesar had great leadership qualities I believe they did not have good morals or enough strength and courage to handle the power. In Julius Caesar, Brutus was known as being noble and always thinking of the good of Rome. If Brutus became president of the United States he would make sure everyone is treated fairly and with honestly.
How far did Wolsey achieve the objectives of his foreign policy? Many historians and theories argue about Wolsey’s true aims and motives towards foreign policy. Wolsey is unpopular among some historians for his ambitious quest for power. However, to be able to discuss how far Wolsey achieved his objectives in foreign policy we need to recognize and identify these objectives first. His rise coincided with the ascension of the new monarch Henry VIII, who was deeply interested in foreign policy and brought policies and a diplomatic mindset that were completely different from those of his father, Henry VII.
Clearly his success had to be dependant on a number of weighty advantages, his growing up in Exile for example. Whilst condemned as a disadvantage, historians today argue that this difficult upbringing imbued within Edward the exact qualities a King is required to have. Frank Barlowe suggests that these include “tenacity and resilience, making him – Edward – accustomed to sudden shifts in fortune as well as developing opportunism, flexibility, patience and an understanding of human nature”. If we assume Barlowe’s interpretation of Edward’s exile is correct then it is reasonable to suggest that Edward already had the qualities of an excellent King within him as a result of his harsh treatment. Another, perhaps less obvious advantage to Edward’s succession is Earl Godwin’s
In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had. He was referred to as a reactionary, unlike his father Alexander II who was known as a reformer. He managed to please the people with his Russian figure and attitude, he changed their attitude and he made tsarism look all the better, all in a short period of time. Despite their different policies, they had the same ambitions inside their head in the long run, and that was to strengthen autocracy in the Russian empire but Alexander III did this by reversing what his father had done as he felt he knew better ways of dealing with the situation and strengthening the Tsarist position. The first thing that Alexander III did when he came into power to contradict his fathers’ reforms was to recall the decision of creating the constitution.
Napoleon Bonaparte was forced to choose between following the principles of the 1789 revolution, or to part from these principles and revert to a political system similar to that of the old Bourbon monarchy. The task that he faced was considerable and Napoleon was very successful in following the revolution's principles for the first part of his career while also ascending to immense power himself. As Napoleon's power in France and then Europe increased, Napoleon began to depart from revolutionary ideals and created institutions similar to those the revolutionaries had attempted to destroy. As an opportunist, Napoleon changed his ideals from 'revolutionary to reformist to reactionary depending upon what suited him at the time.' The Directory lasted four years, the longest of any post-revolution governments, but by 1799 it was seen as a temporary solution and out of date.
The role of an individual in this regard was paramount. There was little reaction by the people to his rise. Moreover, the fact that the Directors had increased his status themselves by glorifying his victories in Italy with the ulterior motive of gaining support for their war policies, had a pertinent role to play in his general acceptance by the French people. Moreover, a reason for the Directory's failure was the merely the part the unworkable constitution had to play in this context. This was the factor which doomed the Directory to failure, no matter when it happened.
Because of those Napoleon can be seen as one of the greatest Generals that ever lived. If you look at the historical meaning, I think it it more debatable. Napoleon is without doubt one of the greatest leaders in military history, his skill as a general both tactically and strategically is without question, his rise to power astounding. Few men in history have had such an impact on world history and he easily ranks along side such leaders as Alexander the Great and Hannibal. Like those leaders he was an authoritarian leader and a dictator whose skill was matched by his ambition, one of those who did not know when the possible ended and the impossible began.
[11] He aimed to earn the love of his people by reinstating the parlements. While none doubted Louis's intellectual ability to rule France, it was quite clear that, although raised as the Dauphin since 1765, he lacked firmness and decisiveness. In spite of his indecisiveness, Louis was determined to be a good king, stating that he "must always consult public opinion; it is never wrong. "[12] Louis therefore appointed an experienced advisor, Jean-Frédéric Phélypeaux, comte de Maurepas who, until his death in 1781, would take charge of many important ministerial functions. Radical financial reforms by Turgot and Malesherbes angered the nobles and were blocked by the parlements who insisted that the King did not have the legal right to levy new taxes.
Robespierre: Hero or Villain? Maximilien Robespierre once said: “Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all”. He was the most influential member of the Committee of Public Safety in France and he was one of the great supporters of liberty and freedom of speech. Furthermore, he was very much inspired by pioneering philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, two of the most radical enlightenment thinkers. Thus, one might believe that he was a very ethical man and a capable leader that could finally bring the French Revolution to an end.