Where Does Gayle King Get Her Glasses

Photo Courtesy: John Shackleton/Wikipedia

Some of the qualities of a adept rex include existence calm and centered, being decisive and having personal integrity. Being hardworking and energetic, speaking well, protecting people, maintaining club, approval others and acknowledging the efforts of other people are a few more ideal characteristics of a king.

While most people would probable find these qualities virtuous, history has proven that they don't always interpret into the kind of deportment you might expect. Let'due south take a closer look at the characteristics of some of the most successful rulers in history.

A Chivalrous King

For a moment, try to imagine the blazon of king you'd similar to live under. What is this ruler similar? Some of the first qualities that come to mind might include things like kindness and generosity. While these are beauteous qualities in a normal person, some people may fence that they accept their limits when it comes to rulership.

Photograph Courtesy: Lazzaro Bastiana/Wikipedia

In his controversial-even so-archetype book The Prince, Renaissance-era philosopher and political scientist Niccolo Machiavelli argues that it's more important for a ruler to be feared than loved. A stable ruler, Machiavelli claims, cannot always afford to be the "nice guy" and must be ruthless when the state of affairs calls for it.

Arguments for this theory be when yous take into consideration some of the most famous leaders in history. Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror and Genghis Khan weren't exactly known for their charity work. Instead, they largely used their qualities to further their kingdoms through war machine might. Cartoon from their examples, some mutual qualities of a good king could include:

Military strength: This involves some personality traits that might initially seem tame, such equally the power to stay calm during anarchy, decisiveness and singleness of purpose.
Tactful yet motivating speech: A king was oft counted on to rally his people or soldiers and explain why his choices were a good idea, whether they turned out to be or non.
Personal integrity: This doesn't always indicate a traditional adherence to morality. Rather, a king had to know exactly who he was and exist sure of himself and his actions at all times.
Wisdom: Bated from a sense of cleverness in military strategy, the best rulers tended to be open to listening to and implementing ideas from their advisors.

Every bit you can see, however, none of these kings mentioned above became famous for simply being dainty all the fourth dimension.

It'south a bit harder to depict the bodily role of a monarch these days, equally information technology's changed a great deal over the form of history. In medieval times, for example, a king essentially had the final say when it came to the laws and decisions in his country.

In many ancient civilizations, such every bit Arab republic of egypt, Nihon, Prc and even Rome, rulers were believed to exist divine entities and were more or less treated as gods on earth — or the closest things to deities, at least. As you tin imagine, these expectations weren't always so easy to live up to. In looking back at The Prince, you'll find that Machiavelli poses an interesting solution: "Information technology is not essential, and then, that a Prince should accept all the skilful qualities [of leadership], only it is nigh essential that he should seem to have them; I will even venture to affirm that if he has and invariably practices them all, they are hurtful, whereas the appearance of having them is useful."

What Machiavelli is suggesting is that it's not necessarily important (or even wise) for a rex to alive according to a strict set of moral standards. What is of import is that he appears to do so. While this may sound hypocritical, it's not far off from modernistic-solar day expectations.

In the U.s.a., when someone runs for president, we want to hear that they accept spotless personal and professional backgrounds. It doesn't take much more than i long-agone thing or unflattering life option to create a total-on scandal in the media. On the other paw, a 2019 study constitute that only 17% of Americans actually trusted the government to "do what is correct" either "simply nigh always" or "nearly of the time."

This brings upward an interesting point, especially considering that many actual kings today largely serve symbolic roles and possess little to no bodily political ability. While we may not always expect our leaders to be perfect, most people at least want their rulers to embody the qualities they'd like to think their country stands for. Perhaps a common role of modern and ancient kings is serving as the faces of their nations to the world.

What Makes a Good King?

And so how is a king expected to be both a ruthless armed forces leader yet also exist (or at least appear to exist) an upstanding homo beingness? It's a fine line, but at that place take been a few rulers throughout history who take pulled it off.

Photo Courtesy: Claudius Jacquand/Wikipedia

A good case tin be found in a Æthelstan, who was the commencement man always recognized as the king of England. Æthelstan ruled between 925 and 939 and was depicted on the pop TV testify Vikings. Known for his devotion to the Christian faith, Æthelstan was a kind and generous king who encouraged learning, established a fair justice arrangement and showed pity as often equally he could.

That said, he wasn't afraid to appoint in necessary conflict with the Vikings, Scots, Norse or anyone else who posed a threat to his kingdom. Overall, he was one of the few kings in history who was able to combine integrity with military and political strength in a way that historians believe served the overall good of his people.

Some other notable example is Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, who ruled over much of Western Europe from 768 to 814. Despite his legacy for uniting all Germanic people into a single kingdom, he had to spend virtually of his reign at war in order to exercise it.

Charlemagne was a trigger-happy and skilled military strategist but was ultimately crowned emperor of the Romans in 800 by Pope Leo Iii. Every bit a ruler, he inspired a cultural and intellectual revival that came to exist known as the Carolingian Renaissance. By combining his skills for military strategy and his ability to promote learning and cultural growth, Charlemagne was able to ensure that his legacy would live on long later on his death. Some still refer to him as the "Father of Europe" to this twenty-four hour period.