Despite his weakness to please the people his effectiveness as Emperor occurred through his relationship with the army, maintenance of peace in the provinces, appropriate spending, financial management and his reforms. The Senate and Tiberius experienced an awkward relationship and it was through Tiberius’ relationship with Sejanus and power, and the retiring to Capri that established this dysfunctional partnership. The sources available shape our understanding of Tiberius rule, yet it is important to be critical of these sources considering reasons for judgement, potentials bias and reliability. Augustus died in 14AD, there was no turmoil in Rome, but Tacitus stated that “two pieces of news became known simultaneously: Augustus was dead, and Tiberius was in control”, chosen “from necessity rather than from choice” (Suetonius). As a political power, the sources depict to us that Tiberius had failed to please the people of the Roman Empire.
However, as shown in Source 6, Hitler was a ‘central figure’ and thus can be considered a strong leader. His personal popularity can be seen as a strength, with absolute loyalty from those around him. There is also the alternative view that everyone in Germany was working towards the Fuhrer, which is reiterated in Sources 3 and 4. Source 6 states that ‘Hitler often refused to take decisions’ and ‘removed himself from day to day decisions of government.’ Arguably, Hitler’s laziness and subsequent government inaction illustrates that he was indeed a weak dictator. He would rarely involve himself in government policy making and was ‘not much help in the practical business of selecting goals, reaching decisions and making policy’, further supported by Source 5.
He was nicknamed, “Man of the People”, but he was born in a predominate family, and lived well outside his means throughout his life. The process of measuring the duality of Thomas Jefferson requires bendable interpretation, adaptability, and sense of time. There are considerable arguments for both sides. A man born of incredible skill and influence, but contradicted by central government power outside the Constitution and popular belief of a prosperous country built on the backs of slaves. An internal battle, I believe, he fought to his dying die.
Indeed, it could be argued that the intrigues and machinations of the imperial court were the defining characteristics of the Julio-Claudian period. This therefore explains why the discussions of motives behind decisions during the Julio-Claudian era have been so controversial. Due in part to his brother Germanicus being a highly regarded member of the soldiery, Claudius was bestowed the role of Emperor after the assassination of Caligula, despite his perceived feebleness and having limited military or any administrative experience at all. It is furthermore suggested that he was potentially intended to be a ‘puppet emperor’ for the Praetorian Guard’s benefit, “The Praetorian Guard sat at the very heart of Rome, and usually reported only to the emperor of Rome himself and it wasn't long before they started to abuse this power”. Initially considered too incompetent to rule, Claudius arose to the role of emperor in an admirable manner for his condition; he was always ill, and was said to have possessed neither natural dignity nor authority.
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. He was a ruthless person and would tolerate no argument, which produced a cadre of Marshals capable of carrying out orders well but having never learnt to think and act for them. This was to prove disastrous as at Waterloo and in the later stages of the Napoleonic wars. Wellington said that a wave of Napoleon hat was worth 40,000 men on the battlefield but he was just one man who could not be everywhere at once, as the Empire was faced with war on several fronts, Napoleon could not be everywhere. Napoleon was a tremendous innovator and administrator.
If I were Julius Caesar Julius Caesar was a Roman military and political leader. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. He spent all his life being a king of Roman Empire, but unfortunately, he failed at last. Although he did not success, he is still a great man in the history. Julius Caesar was a great talented militarist rather than a politic statesman.
This made his position a weak one, forcing Edward to bind himself to Godwin, as the Earl of Wessex and most powerful man in England at this time. Earl Godwin was the only member of the witan offering to support Edward. The reasons for this are unclear though it is likely Godwin felt that he could exert influence over the inexperienced King and therefore gain yet more power over England. Despite the odds being stacked against him, Edward took the English throne from the Danish royal family and established himself as a strong and wise King. Clearly his success had to be dependant on a number of weighty advantages, his growing up in Exile for example.
Hitler was considered to be incapable of making a decision and as a result his government lacked any form control of important decisions and his general poor leadership skills it is clear to see why Hitler can be seen to be a weak dictator. Hitler was purely the figurehead of the Nazi party being kept afloat by his loyal following of ‘henchmen’. Although from an outside perspective it would seem as though Hitler was a strong dictator this is purely as a result of Nazi propaganda, without the work of Goebbels Hitler would not have gained such a high status. On the other hand internationalists believe that although there were divisions within the Nazi party this was all part of Hitler’s ‘divide and rule’ strategy. They believe that this approach maintained Hitler’s personal power.
He just threw himself in the bloodiest middle of the fray, and hacked his way out. Just as he had admirable strengths of character, so did he have unpraiseworthy weaknesses. His biggest weaknesses were his ambition and his manipulability. Because he was such a good worker, he couldn't help but hope for recognition and reward for the consistently superior quality of his work. It may have been that he was serving a sovereign, King Duncan I [d. August 14, 1040], who wasn't known for appreciation or generosity.
Yet the reality of it is that this man is a king of great power whom they will soon bow down to. Another example of how characters can be perceived throughout the novel is shown throughout the journey of the main protagonist, he was also perceived by his appearance as a small, witless, futile and incapable to carry the great burden before him. Yet as the novel heads towards its crucial climax, he completes the task that many people perceive as impossible for him and rose to be the only one capable of such a task. Another Internal representation of perception is a main character who is perceived as a vile and psycho creature. It is later on shown that the story of this creature is a sad one and he is not at all what he is perceived to be.