The personal qualities that made Basil II successful are as follows; He was a very successful Byzantine emperor, Basil II brought the empire to renewed heights of power and glory during his reign from 976 to 1025. He builds upon the foundations left by his predecessors. These side whiskers were one of Basil’s trademarks because he loved to twirl them when he was in deep thought or angry. The emperor also spent a lot of time in armor because he was involved in almost constant wars throughout his reign. His speech was plain; his manner was abrupt and direct, making him appear coarse in the eyes of his court.
The reign of Tiberius (b. 42 B.C., d. A.D. 37, emperor A.D. 14-37) is a particularly important one for the Principate, since it was the first occasion when the powers designed for Augustus alone were exercised by somebody else. In contrast to the approachable and tactful Augustus, Tiberius emerges from the sources as an enigmatic and darkly complex figure, intelligent and cunning, but given to bouts of severe depression and dark moods that had a great impact on his political career as well as his personal relationships. His reign abounds in contradictions. Despite his keen intelligence, he allowed himself to come under the influence of unscrupulous men who, as much as any actions of his own, ensured that Tiberius's posthumous reputation would be unfavourable; despite his vast military experience, he oversaw the conquest of no new region for the empire; and despite his administrative abilities he showed such reluctance in running the state as to retire entirely from Rome and live out his last years in isolation on the island of Capri.
Henry VII had been a skilled diplomat and kept England out of major European conflicts. Therefore, Henry VIII inherited a state that was united behind the monarch, a state that had a decent European reputation, a monarchy that was wealthier than it had been for centuries, nobility that had been tamed and made to work for the Crown and a system of government that was competent and effective. Weaknesses Henry VIII inherited Henry VII was unpopular with his subjects as he took a lot of money away from the people of England. His Tax Collectors, Empson and Dudley were also unpopular due to their tactics of getting more money. All were greedy.
When Henry was made king he was short of money because he had fought lots of expensive wars. Henry then noticed that the church had a lot of money. If he took over the church all of its treasury would be his. Source 1 states that “monasteries were very rich and owned about a quarter of the land in the country”, so he could then close down the monasteries, take their money and sell of the land. Henry needed the money for power so that he could then build a stronger army and fight more wars.
This is an example of how Louis so strictly controlled his nobles, many called Versailles a “gilded cage,” because of how the nobles were so enclosed in such a beautiful place. Many of the taxes from the commoners went directly to the construction and well-keeping of versailles, this obviously upset the citizens in the town. Despite Louis’ strange requests and poor control of the economy, he was an excellent war strategist. Much of the other money he gained from the citizens he used to design weapons and create an unstoppable army. By the end, the numbers in his army sky-rocketed from 180,000 troops, to 450,000, proving that Louis XIV was a very successful war leader.
Since the views of Heckscher and Cooper are completely different so are their intentions for the books. Heckscher’s thesis was that, “Wilson was a strong leader who used his strengths and his durable personality and character to make him an overall great leader.” This opposes Cooper’s thesis which showed Wilson ran our country in a selfish way trying to contribute more for himself then the people. Cooper’s greatest point was when Wilson had a stroke, he was to self-absorbed in himself to even recognize he was unable to continue being president and have a positive effect on the
Joshua Painter 27/09/13 Henry VIII Essay ‘How far did Henry VIII’s reign begin a new era in Tudor kingship?’ Henry VII and Henry VIII were very different kings. Their styles of ruling and aims had very different intentions. Henry VII was a very conservative king who liked to rule very safely and avoid war wherever possible whilst being very obsessive and greedy when it came to money. Henry VIII however was a young and vibrant king who wanted to gain a strong reputation, willing to fight and go to war at any cost. Henry VIII also dished out harsh and extreme punishments.
Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor. Therefore, while both the main Yorkist Kings during this period did go some way to restoring royal authority in England, their successes were limited. Edward IV was successful at restoring royal authority as he was able to control the different regions of the Kingdom, such as the North and Wales, through the use of magnates. During his reign, Edward makes Richard, his brother, the duke of Gloucester, and puts Rivers in charge of Wales and his son. This meant that these areas, which were traditionally either pro-Lancastrian or prone to rebellion, were more controlled during Edward IV’s reign, which helped to restore royal authority.
In conclusion, M.A.I.N. caused the start of World War One especially imperialism. Imperialism is where a stronger nation bring a weaker nation under their control through politically, socially, or economically. People were greedy to get what they wanted such as the land. Since only few colonies are left, nations fought other nations through war.
For the first sixty years of the twentieth century, historians believed that McKinley had been a weak President pressured into the war with Spain by popular passions and a nationalistic press. Most interpretations held that McKinley's weakness extended to the domestic political arena. McKinley was a managed President, so the thinking went, a chief executive handled by his political cronies, especially Mark Hanna. McKinley, moreover, suffered in comparison to his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, whom historians thought possessed—often in abundance—many of the characteristics that McKinley lacked. In the 1960s, a new assessment of McKinley emerged, however.