The reason it is so difficult to determine a single reason for the rise of 4 dictators in Europe at about the same time is that<u> they all came to </u><u>power </u><u>for </u><u>different reasons</u><u> and as a result of </u><u>different circumstances. </u>
<h3>The Four Dictators of Europe </h3>
- Josef Stalin - Came to power after working his way up the Communist party. Communists were already in power so this was not as a result of change in government.
- Adolf Hitler - Came to power as a result of German economic problems and went the democratic route until he became dictator.
- Benito Mussolini - Came to power as a result of Italian economic problems and got power by marching on Rome and demanding it.
- Francisco Franco - Came to power as a result of a Civil War that broke out more over ideology than economic problems.
These dictators took powers differently and were not all as a result of economic problems which is what makes it hard to pinpoint a single cause for their rise.
Find out more on Francisco Franco at brainly.com/question/1602760.
Answer:
Expansion of empire and good economy.
Explanation:
Yes, I think Aurangzeb was a great king as Akbar because he got victories in the south and expanded the Empire to more than 4 million square kilometers. During his rule, economic condition of the empire is very good. His empire was the world's largest economy, consists of 25% of world's GDP. These two things i.e. expansion of empire and economy make the Aurangzeb a great king.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Machiavelli was a diplomat in Florence who tried to answer how could a ruler guarantee that he would stay in power by writing The Prince in 1513. Machiavelli claimed that people were greedy and self-centered. He argued that rulers should not be good, and that rulers should do whatever is necessary to keep power and protect their city, including killing and lying. Today, when someone is called a Machiavellian, it means that they are acting tricky and not thinking about the good.
