Answer:
It’s common to describe ruthless or devious politicians as “Machiavellian.” But rarely in the United States have we seen an embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump, the president-elect.
Go down the list of Trump’s controversial characteristics and you will find many of the qualities the cynical Machiavelli thought were essential for a tough leader. Trump can be a liar, which the Florentine philosopher believed was sometimes a necessary part of leadership. He can be a bully, like some of the Italian potentates Machiavelli lauded. He has boasted of a voracious sexual appetite, like Machiavelli himself.
To say that Trump displays attributes that Machiavelli deemed necessary in the fractious, perpetually warring states of the 16th century is not to recommend him as a modern leader. Nobody would want a neo-feudal dictator to lead a 21st-century democracy, you might think. But the American public voted Tuesday for Trump, perhaps in part because it shares Machiavelli’s concept of strength, or as he liked to call it, “virtue
Explanation:
hey here is your answer
In ancient Rome, the wealthy noble citizens were known as the Patricians, while the lower class citizens were call the plebians. The plebians had far less social impact than the Patricians.
Ok so step 2, Does Lincoln think that we can continue to have some slave states and some free states. Lincoln wanted freedom in ALL states. he wanted to abolish slavery and he was against it. He knows that there cannot be a agreement so he says <span>I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. he he says he doesn't think the government has a say so in this even though he wants all free states.
</span><span>Does Douglas think we can continue to have some slave states and some free states?
he's saying that </span><span>each State being left free to decide for itself. SO in other words, he says that it's shouldn't be up to the gov, but up to the states.
i don't really know much about the part where is says. </span><span>Tell me about a historic idea that supports Douglas’ point of view on this. but i </span>hope that was some help, let me know if u have questions.
Answer:
One characteristic of Indian armies was their inability or lack of desire to engage in protracted warfare, or guerrilla tactics. Ancient China in the warring states period featured the mass-mobilization of thousands of peasant soldiers who fought for years at a time, leading to enormous social disruption and famines.
Explanation:
Hope it helps
