One Person Can Make The Difference Essay

, Research Paper

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

It was Thomas Carlyle who believed that one individual could alter the class of events in history. He strongly believed that it was because of the persons? illustriousness that led the people into their results, non historical fortunes, which Carl Marx would reason. Napoleon Bonaparte is a perfect illustration of single illustriousness. Carlyle said, ? It is non a lucky word, this name & # 8220 ; impossible & # 8221 ; ; no good comes of those who have it so frequently in their mouths. ? ? The word impossible was non a familiar word to Napoleon. He was successful in what he tried to accomplish because he allow nil stand in his manner. Could person, like Napoleon, genuinely stand as an person and alter the class of history? Yes, and it happened. Napoleon was merely one of many leaders who led his people, and changed history forever.

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15, 1769 and died May 5, 1821. During that clip he rose to be one of the greatest leaders that France of all time had. Napoleon created political confederations and seized control of the Gallic Government. He made alterations in all countries, including authorities, faith and instruction. He made a new fundamental law every bit good as puting up a Continental System. Napoleon led France to many triumphs, which was his key to deriving the trust of the people. Napoleon won the war for France with the Austrians that led to the sign language of the Treaty of Campoformio, which enlarged France? s Territory. After 10 old ages of war, the people wanted one strong leader and Napoleon had proven himself worthy of that rubric. For the first clip in ten old ages, because of Napoleon, Europe was at peace. Napoleon nevertheless, still wasn? T satisfied. He was crowned Emperor and he dominated Europe with the glorious rubric. He had triumph after triumph. He was unstoppable. After each conflict, the Napoleonic Empire enlarged. Napoleon was a great war hero that was ever on the quest for peace. Carlyle put it best by stating, ? The adult male without a intent is like a ship without a rudder & # 8211 ; street child, a nil, a no adult male. Have a intent in life, and, holding it, throw such strength of head and musculus into your work as God has given you. ? ? Napoleon had a strong thrust for his intent to construct his Napoleonic imperium, which was highly good for him because he stopped at nil until his satisfactions were accomplished.

Another leader that had a strong impact on his people, much like Napoleon, was Adolf Hitler. Even though Adolf? s actions were non great, he had a immense authorization. Hitler led the Nazis and called for all Germans, even those in other states, to unify into one state ; they called for a strong cardinal authorities ; and they called for the cancellation of the Versailles Treaty. Like Napoleon ; he knew how to construct up rank rapidly. Hitler gained control of Germany, much like Napoleon did with Europe, and he gave himself the rubric & # 8220 ; Fuehrer & # 8221 ; ( leader ) . He used extended propaganda to advance his theories. Unlike other leaders, Hitler believed in killing all people who didn? t tantrum into his positions of the? maestro race? . Where as Napoleon believed in altering people to suit his positions. Nothing could be done with out his personal blessing and so it was he who was naming the shootings for the state. Alexander the Gre

at was another leader who had a vision of doing people follow his order. His object was much like Napoleon? s. He wanted to make the greatest imperium known to adult male. He conquered much of what was so the civilised universe. Alexander brought Greek thoughts and the Grecian manner of making things to all the states he conquered. Much like Napoleon did with liberalism to the states he conquered. The difference between Alexander and Napoleon was that he won the people? s trusts by puting illustrations. Napoleon won his trust in the people by the triumphs he won for them. Alexander the Great made possible the loosely developed civilization of the Hellenistic Age. Napoleon did the same by distributing his beliefs of Liberalism every bit good as his Gallic civilization throughout Europe as he concurred it.

Napoleon and Hitler had one thing in common. As leaders, they both knew how to utilize and pull strings their people. Both had ends they felt they needed to carry through. The differences between Napoleon? s ends and Hitler? s were that Napoleon wanted to transfuse autonomy among his people with him governing over them, and Hitler wanted to do a? perfect? race by pass overing out any other race that didn? t run into his criterions. Both manipulated their people to acquire what they wanted. As for Alexander the Great, his thought of constructing the greatest imperium was merely every bit narcissistic as Hitler? s thought of constructing the perfect race. However, his thoughts of distributing consciousness about the Grecian civilization were short from egotistic. The thoughts were introduced by these leaders and would hold ne’er had happened if they were non allowed to go the power over their state. No 1 would cognize about Liberalism if Napoleon didn? t measure in and present it to everyone. Even if person else tried to present the thought it wouldn? Ts have been effectual because they wouldn? Ts have the same power over the people that Napoleon gained. If Hitler didn? t addition entree to brainwash people with his thoughts of propaganda, so he wouldn? Ts have had adequate support to carry through what he did and therefore the slaughters of Jews wouldn? Ts have happened.

Persons do do the difference and the great work forces of history are non the topics of their times, but instead those who changed the events of history. Napoleon was a military mastermind that amidst the pandemonium of the crumbling system was able to recognize his full potency as a universe vanquisher. He was seeking to keep control over a deceasing state. All this can non be attributed to history and the force of fate. Possibly the Gallic people were bound to unify after their battle. Possibly the thoughts of holding an ideal race were merely around the corner. Possibly the universe would one twenty-four hours unify into a immense imperium, ne’er once more to be separate. Possibly these are all merely simple instances of people being in the right topographic point at the right times. I think non! It took one individual in charge to do these events possible. You can non perchance believe that these events were bound to go on Oklahoman or subsequently and that these work forces? by chance? stumbled upon them and used them to their advantages. These people rose to power and used it to pull strings the people to transport out their ends. Therefore, everything that happened in these times happened because they made them go on, non because they were intended to go on.