This image of Charlemagne as the builder of the empire undeniably owes a great debt to the portrayal put forward by Einhard in his work the Life of Charlemagne. Einhard, beyond just being a member of the king's court, was indeed a great admirer of Charlemagne. Einhard himself said that he was writing so that the achievements and deeds of Charles would not be forgotten (p. 18). The close relationship between Charles and Einhard presents both positive and negative aspects when it comes to studying the figure of Charlemagne in Einhard’s work. While this close relationship does allow for a better understanding of Charles, it also creates the bias with which Einhard wrote.
Assess the achievements and impact of Tiberius as princeps Suetonius states that ‘it is my belief that Augustus scale’ weighed Tiberius good qualities against the bad and decided that the good tipped the scale’. This reveals the nature of Tiberius’ succession as one of necessity. Tiberius had huge feats to live up to from Augustus’ rule; however he endeavored to continually improve the Roman Empire. His most significant achievements were based around his military reforms, foreign and civil policies, increasing involvement of the senate and his successful civil administration that had a lasting impact on Rome. Therefore, it can be stated that Tiberius, despite given power with reluctance, continued to build Rome to new a level of greatness.
. .divine power upon earth…” (Doc. 2) this implies that kings are just like god and they were chosen by god to rule on earth. A democracy is believed that all men are treated equally. According to Voltaire “The best government seems to be that in which all ranks of men are equally protected by the laws” (Doc.
However, the most accurate assessment of Bonaparte’s intentions as leader most probably lies somewhere in between these two views. He was undoubtedly ruthlessly ambitious, but nevertheless, as an autocratic leader, made his own ambitions and desires synonymous with those of France and its people. Tulard (C) is no doubt the most forceful in claiming that the personal benefits which arose from making France a more stable, and thus more prosperous country, had always been Napoleon’s primary motivation from the very outset. However, a number of flaws in his argument are apparent, particularly the fact that he neglects to consider the desires of the French population; a strong government capable of restoring much needed political and
Louis XIII and Louis XIV both claimed to rule by divine right. Both strongly believed in how they ruled their kingdoms and showed that they wanted as much power as they could attain. Both kings always had the final decision for everything and one thing Louis XIII decided to do was go to war against Spain for balance of power. Louis XIV built Versailles because he wanted a magnificent place for all the powerful people to live because he was paranoid. These two kings got to do whatever they wanted since they were ruling with Divine Right.
Assignment 1 Jacques- Benigne Bossuet, “The Theory of Divine Right” LaDayna Franklin “Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) is an excellent example of the “old school” of European political thought…” His belief was the monarchy system which was a political system believed to be ordained by God, gave kings the right to rule by divine right. Bossuet stated “Monarchial government is the best”. By this he is saying that there is no better form of government because kings are ordained by God and with this action there is an automatic natural order that forms this proper government. The Theory of the Divine Right aimed at instilling obedience by explaining why all social ranks were religiously and morally obliged to obey their government. The Theory of the Divine Right was directed at convincing the cultured and wealthy groups that they should serve as royal officials not try and seize power for themselves.
He created new bishoprics and archbishoprics, making sure all church officials followed the orders of their supe¬riors. With this act, Charlemagne not only garnered the support of the Catholic Church but also made himself its guard¬ian, which guaranteed the unwavering support of the people, who looked to the church before their king for moral and ethical
He uses his divine and extraordinary power to govern the country without issue any laws. It shows in the ancient Uruk, as long as you are strong enough, you gain the full authority. The “law of Hammurabi” represents a more developed ancient society. The reader, Hammurabi governs his citizens by issuing law and justice system in order to organize his citizens in order. It also represents us the social order
“One King, One Law, One Faith.” Louis XIV declared his goal was “One king, one law, one faith.” As an absolutist ruler, Louis centered the country around himself, and was very successful in his goals. Louis glorified his position as the king, achieving the “One king”, limited the powers of others, achieving the “One law”, and united the French religion as one, achieving the “One faith.” During his reign, Louis XIV was very successful in accomplishing this central, powerful French monarchy. To achieve the idea of “One king” in France, Louis glorified himself as an absolute leader and performed wonders to to France’s civilization. In 1682, Louis relocated his palaces to Versailles, which was magnificent enough to be the home of a god. The size of the city and the beauty of the city amazed Europe, and they proclaimed his authority.
Why was Charlemagne successful in expanding the boundaries of the Carolingian empire Before I can begin to explain why Charlemagne was successful in expanding the boundaries of the Carolingian empire, I need to give a little background into his being. Charlemagne was king of the Franks and one of Europe’s most successful monarchs. He became king after his father, King Pepin, passed away. Although the kingdom he inherited was great, one of his main goals was to further extend the boundaries of his great land. He was known as an outstanding military and political leader, determined warrior and ruthless competitor.