Need Help with History Homework?

[Trax]

he was not a cruel leader by 17th and 18th centuary standards

Chopping off the heads of the streltsy with his own hands and torturing his son to death might be a bit unusual, don't you think?

[Jaketh]

Chopping off the heads of the streltsy with his own hands and torturing his son to death might be a bit unusual, don't you think?

that was pretty standard back then, his son was weak and stupid and rebelled against him, i would have done the same thing, he died in prison i think

[Trax]

How many other monarchs can you name who personally performed the functions of an executioner both on the scaffold and in the torture chambers?

[Viking Prince]

I will give this some time to get you started on the homework, but this will be merged into the homework thread. In the future please use the homework thread for such requests.

VP

[Londinium]

You could make a fairly good argument for Henry VIII being pretty Machiavellian. He engineered a split from Rome based not upon theology as most splits with Rome were but for his own reasons. By splitting with Rome he managed to get the divorce he wanted and also bolster his Kingdom's very strained finances by dissolving the incredibly rich monasteries. However right until his death he remained a practising Catholic and it wasn't until his son's (and then his daughter Elizabeth's) reign when the Church of England really began to take on a Protestant character.

All in all a pretty Machiavellian thing to do.

As for The Prince, I studied it last year and it is a pretty credible book and works on a number of levels. I actually prefer it to the Discourses, Republicanism has far more eloquent defenders than Machiavelli. However alongside Hobbes' Leviathan, The Prince is probably the best defence for a benevolent autocrat.

[Jaketh]

How many other monarchs can you name who personally performed the functions of an executioner both on the scaffold and in the torture chambers?

not many, and i dont see it as a bad thing. Peter was for lack of a better word a badass

[Trax]

Peter was for lack of a better word a badass

An alcoholic sadist and maniac you mean?

[Londinium]

An alcoholic sadist and maniac you mean?

Which is pretty much par for the course as far as Russians go.

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

not many, and i dont see it as a bad thing. Peter was for lack of a better word a badass

remember the point of the essay is to link the actions of the monarch to the principles in The Prince. You would need to show that by being a badass by those methods, he was in fact simply using visibly extreme hands-on actions for larger ends and political gain, being very conscious of the link between those methods and the ends, and not simply out of brutality for the sake of personal sadistic satisfaction. And that the political results of such actions were planned and not incidental. Intent is everything.

[Odovacar]

No, Trax is right. Peter's action were only 'standard' in his own Russia.
18th century Europe abhorred royalties doing nasty things personally. That's why they had their henchmen.

I don't really understand why anyone want help in his homework, when only creativity is needed. The very meaning of homework is that you must make it personally to evolve your skills.

[Jaketh]

An alcoholic sadist and maniac you mean?

best kind of ruler and ive never read the prince, so im just going by what i know of Peter

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

best kind of ruler and ive never read the prince, so im just going by what i know of Peter

If you have not read The Prince, then...you are just commenting in this thread to voice your support of the actions of a 'badass' monarch? Not really helpful to the OPer, mate.

[Mr. Scott]

Cardinal Mazarin
He was the successor to Richelieu and continued Richelieu's work. Like when he ended the Fronde.

[Jaketh]

If you have not read The Prince, then...you are just commenting in this thread to voice your support of the actions of a 'badass' monarch? Not really helpful to the OPer, mate.

well i know what he was talking about so i didnt need to read the book to help him compare

[EmperorBatman999]

Absolute does not necessarily equal "cruel"...it may end up that way in reality, but it is not by definition. Also, absolutism as a government form is not synonymous with Machiavellian...in fact, it could be argued that many of the tenants of the Prince are not required in such a government form (arguable), and is more designed in a system where back-room maneuvering is more the norm.

Anyways, Louis XIV is an obvious choice, mainly because of France's standing in the world at that time, and its influence abroad. The actions of the king were watched in almost every court, as a warning or as an example. You'll be able to find alot of source material for Louis.

If you wanted to be a renegade and push your teacher a bit, argue that some of those monarchs were in fact not truly absolutist, and use the Prince to help prove your argument

Tell that to my teacher, I wasn't the one who gave myself this essay. To be honest with, I don't want to do it.

No, Trax is right. Peter's action were only 'standard' in his own Russia.
18th century Europe abhorred royalties doing nasty things personally. That's why they had their henchmen.

I don't really understand why anyone want help in his homework, when only creativity is needed. The very meaning of homework is that you must make it personally to evolve your skills.

I don't plan to copy and paste people's posts into my essay. I needed to pick leaders for my essay and I didn't know where to begin since generally Absolutist Monarch =/= The Prince's leader.

I think Peter will be my second option, possibly Henry VIII for my third.

[Elmar]

From a Machiavellian point of view Elizabeth I would be quite interesting. Certainly beating her more blunt father in Machiavellian cunning, imho.
Her dealings with Spain, Protestantism, Mary Queen of Scots and dealings with Scotland in general, marriage and Walsingham's spy network, etc. So much to cover that if anything, she might be too Machiavellian to cover adequately.
I recommend you to have a look at her Wiki that gives a decent insight in to the extent of her dealings.

[Viking Prince]

I think you have your help with the assignment. If this needs to continue, it will be within the homework thread. Merged.


VP

[Bellus88]

Hey, I really need help it turns out all my course reader is mixed up for university, they give you a stack of papers for this course and you put it in a binder, I managed to organize most of it but I cannot find anything to do with these articles Im supposed to read, this question relates to them.
Can someone please help? Here it is.

It's for an online test Im doing due tomorrow before 10 am, this is the only one I don't know.

You gotta match the region with the origin.

maize, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, chilli peppers, manioc, most beans A. Americas

rice, yams, bananas, taro B. Middle East

rice, yams C. East and SouthEast Asia

chickpeas, lentils, wheat, rye, barley D. Africa


You gotta match the food with the region.

Going to take a History genius to know this! If anyone know's please tell me.

[Central Asian Qaghan]

The images aren't showing.

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

As far as i know Maize comes from the middle east, Potatoes from the Americas, Tomatoes from South Amarica, Beans from the middle east(Afghanistan and the Himilayas), Chili Peppers obviouslly from South America, Rice Eastern Asia, Manioc i dont know but it sounds african. Yams from Western Africa, Chickpeas from the Middle East, Wheat from the Middle East,Lentils again the Middle East as well as rye barley

P.S. Isn't there a homework help thread? Give that a shot i think next time