According to king Wu, Heaven granted authority and legitimacy to a ruler as long as he looked out for the welfare of his subjects, if he did not do this and he ignored the warning signs of flood, famine, invasion, or other disasters, Heaven could withdraw this “Mandate” and transfer it to another, more worthy ruler and family (“Earth and Its Peoples” P. 53, ll. 9-15). According to Yi Yin, if a ruler becomes addicted to the fashions of sorcerers, extravagance, or disorder the state will come to ruin (“Human Record” P. 34, ll. 34-38). 2.
Through his documentary of Gaozu, Sima Qian references to the cycle of dynasties where the downfall of one empire leads to the rise of another. Following the insatiable rise to power by the tyrant, Xiang Yu, the King of Han was looked upon to remove Xiang Yu from power and in a sense return the empire “to good faith”. In the reading, Gaozu consistently seems to define this return to good faith as a return to a king’s true duties rather than his materialistic desires. For example, when Gaozu first gains rule over the Qin territory, he declares that the “officials and people remain undisturbed as before” and that he has “come only to save [them] from further harm, not to exploit or tyrannize over [them]” (Watson, 62). Gaozu implies that, unlike the arrogant and selfish rule of Xiang Yu, he is concerned not about usurping territory and power, but about sustaining the prosperity of his subjects.
Once he had an idea, to him that was final and the only “right” idea. Charles as a military leader also added to the defeat. He made himself commander in chief and while this may have strengthened his position if he could provide strong leadership and bring his generals and politicians together, it also meant that he became responsible for his defeat. Good advice was never acted upon. Military failure also played a role in the defeat of the Royalist cause.
In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice. The historical significance of this article is, during this time if no separation of powers or checks and balances were enforced the government would have collapsed. If the powers were not limited; with time a certain person would end democracy and bring forth once again a tyranny government. It is also important that the government was equal yet had power to control its people because if not there would be no type of
A recurring theme throughout the period is the regime’s desire to maintain autocracy, which Lenin’s disregard for democracy in any area and opposition shows. This point is further emphasized by Alexander III’s belief that change was a risk and not necessary, as he argued by criticizing his father and also practically demonstrated by reducing the powers of the Zemstva. Repression was increased substantially to deal with opposition and apart from Nicholas II under whom it was briefly paused, this set the basis for Russian rule in the rest of the period. Despite Khrushchev’s easing of repression, the damage had been done under his predecessors Lenin and Stalin in removing any threat posed by opposition and ensuring that their rule remained untouched, in a further demonstration of their opposition to change.
The second outcome of the revolutions was that the countries were dramatically changed, two great powers were stopped and communist leaders eventually took over in the two countries. Russia and China both shared similar goals in that they both wanted a new form of government and leadership. Russia’s ruler was Tsar Nicholas II which ruled Russia for more than three centuries. China’s ruling dynasty was the Qing Dynasty. Tsar Nicholas II wasn’t much of a good ruler for Russia; he ignored the fact that Russia wasn’t doing so good and overlooked the industrialization and nationalism that was occurring throughout Russia.
The intended audience could be future rulers or sons of those who are currently ruling and they want their descendants to be able to see how they came to their right of power. It’s almost as if it is rules regarding how a ruler is chosen, and/or what ruler’s roles are after they have been chosen. 3) The purpose of the text seems to be rules and regulations, but like the text says it was a way for the Zhou to overthrown the Shang. I also think it was to scare future rulers, because it mentions that the good-doer it sends blessing, whereas the evil-doer heaven sends down all miseries, and if the ruler results in poverty or miseries on their people, they can be overthrown. The source is a primary source, but it also says it is a collection of myths and recollected texts, and that being said when it says ‘myths’ I have doubts about this text.
People who breaks them would be punished severely. The state wasn’t ran by Qin Shi Huang but by the system he created. If the law is enforced well, the weak rulers would be strong. Qin Shi Huang made an order that secrets or special tactics are to be told to him at once to make sure no one would dethroned him. Those who are the rulers are the most powerful and most superior among all but the ruler himself
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
Legalists believed that if the punishment was heavy and the law against their actions were strict, neither the powerful nor the weak would be able to escape the consequences. There are a lot of different aspects of Confucianism and Legalism that have opposing views; the role of government was one of them. In Confucianism, the government was designed to have a good ruler that the people respected and obeyed. The intent was to have the government benefit the people. Legalists on the other hand, believed that the people were there to serve the government and that the government was the main priority in the society.