History has always fascinated me be it the Roman empire or the Egyptian or Greek. It gives a deep insight as to how the ruler's mindset, ambitions, conflicts, power struggles, power victories, and lifestyles shape up the nation.
If you read the history of Rome, you see it going from a Republic to an Empire after the death of Julius Caesar in 31 BC. Augustus was Rome's first Emperor and he was successful. A series of emperors succeeded him, some good like Antoninus Pius, some wicked like Nero, and some completely insane and cruel like Caligula.
One such ruler was Marcus Aurelius ruled Rome from 161 to 180 AD, also known as the last of the 'Five Good Emperors'. He ruled with absolute power under the guidance of wisdom and virtue. His reign wasn't easy, he faced wars with the Parthian Empire, the barbarian tribes, the rise of Christianity as well as the plague that killed many. Everywhere, he placed himself on the front line leading people along with the Senate to believe in him. He was not a direct descendant of the throne but was selected by the Emperor for his prodigious capabilities.
He had a son, Commodus whom he trained himself but he knew from the very beginning that Commodus did not have the proficiency or potential within himself to lead a nation. Nevertheless, on his deathbed, he named Commodus as his successor and lo and behold, it marked the end of the Golden period of the Roman Empire. Commodus changed the name of Rome to Colonia Commodiana (Colony of Commodus), imagined he was God Hercules, entered the Colosseum to fight as a gladiator, and winning by giving his opponents a blunt sword. Eventually, he was murdered by his own people. A case of 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
If you visit France during the period of Louis IV who became the king in 1643, began ruling from 1660 till his death in 1715 AD. He was obsessed with the power and shifted his empire to Versailles from Paris. His palace was initially a hunting lodge converted to an opulent palace built especially to impress.
He was an absolute monarch and wanted all nobles to relinquish their power and bow to him. He married for power and had countless Mistresses giving him many children. He was a devout Catholic and in 1680's he generated immense hostility among his people by enforcing religious uniformity among his people. He was intolerant to Protestants and many people fled France to seek religious freedom. The taxations were high for the locals and the nobles were exempted. In seeking glory for himself considering himself as Sun King he neglected the needs of his people and it is said that when his body was being carried, the citizens booed the king.
These two rulers have stood out to me because each one had a long reign so they had ample time to analyze their country, understand the people and its need.
Emperor Marcus was a philosopher and a great military warrior who fought on the front lines. He could see through his son knowing undoubtedly that he was incapable both on the battlefield and in the senate but still passed on power to someone who was capable of misusing it completely and Commodus does just that. That simple act speaks volumes. Somehow it is difficult for a ruler to tear himself apart from the role of a father and that act can spell disaster. We have seen it in our own Mahabharata with Dhritarashtra whose blind love for his son Duryodhana gets millions killed in the great war. Even today, we see the same scene being repeated time and again with political dynasties and business empires.
King Louis was young when he became the King and easily influenced. He lacked experience and more concerned with outside beauty than internal peace and happiness and therefore focussed more on Versailles and battles and taxation. Every woman he developed an affection for swayed him towards their visions and that spelled doom for him. His ego, his need for dominance made him bring everyone to kneel before him, and soon one develops a 'YES' community around them. Isn't that exactly what we observe with many leaders across the globe? They begin ruling as Dictators and the nation has lost a voice. Within years, it would give an uprise to civil wars, and tensions and power will exchange hands.
I truly believe that if you wish to understand a person or a nation or its people then study its history because that has shaped, conditioned, and honed the personality, vision, and structure of the person and place. In fact, national cultures have shaped the corporate structures too. As per the paper written by Mohammed Ayub Khan and Laurie Smith on 'The Role of National cultures in shaping the corporate Management structures: A three-country Theoretical Analysis: The American national culture is recognized as being individualistic, freedom-oriented and competitive. Thus, they easily accept consumerism and materialism.
Ex: Japan is a very peace-loving country but it wasn't so during the World War II. After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, it shifted its perspective, focussing more on building itself and the nation.
People in France can speak English but do not wish to. Why?
Spanish is the second most spoken language in the world? Ever wondered why? Check out its conquests and earlier empires.
Appreciate the history and soon you will be building bridges and shaping futures.
References:
Ancient Origins - https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/commodus-outrageous-emperor-who-fought-gladiator-002713
Encyclopedia Brittanica - https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire
Image - https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancient-origins.net%2Fhistory-famous-people%2Fphilosopher-king-ancient-rome-marcus-aurelius-imperium-009105&psig=AOvVaw2BrWefEHLclviNh8FnRbGf&ust=1595083482239000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKjsgpzD1OoCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
