The King is Thou Fear as Thou Emperor Fears You - Essay Example

Tapez le nom de la société] Thy King is thou fear as thou Emperor fears you [Tapez le sous-titre du document] Computer [Sélectionnez la [Tapez le résumé du document ici. Il sagit généralement dune courte synthèse du document. Tapez le résumé du document ici. Il sagit généralement dune courte synthèse du document.] Thesis: The whole principle of a kings or Emperors implies cruelty strife, civil wars, starvations. How can a king be strong or weak when they control through submission of the people. The perception of the people: a king is strong who keeps food on the table, taxation down and cities free from war. It is neither the case for Otto and Vitellius nor King Stephen. For these reasons kings and Emperors are weak. 1 The King is Thou Fear as Thou Emperor Fears You The year of four Caesars hardly means that these Emperors were in control of their empires. "Otho and Vitellius were the worst and the weakest of the kings, but their immorality actually increased their strength. In these instances kings are weak, but their armies were well fed and coffers full of sustenance.The lack of discipline in Vitellius troops actually improved his favor with the legions and made them more loyal. The troop understood his needs and enjoyed their own desecration of the people. Vitellius turning a blind eye cultivated a better relationship and overall gave him more stability and increased potency as an emperor". His blind eye was met as a general in his desire for a gluttonous eye that need the wealth of the land to pay for his guise. The people paid dearly as they suffered. His soldiers followed in fear of their life but in joy of being part of the legion. "In a complete lack of morality Otho was welcomed by his people of the countryside and returned their kindness by burning and plundering as if his own people were the enemy. It meant little to him that he was betraying his own subjects. The actions selfishly benefitted himself and the needs of the army. Vitellius’ soldiers were especially brutal to their own people. Sexual assault and ravaging were rampant among his troops. Vitellius’ legions were not always disciplined enough to maintain order. Kings from time to time definitely have these occurrences and displays of weakness. Otho and Vitellius were the worst and the weakest of the kings, but their immorality actually increased their strength. In these instances kings are weak, but their armies were well fed and coffers full of sustenance".1 "It was much more economical for the emperors to kill farmers and take their fields than pay the farmers for the tons of sustenance".2 An army marches on its stomach and there was no shortage of legions to be fed. This also puts in perspective for the soldiers to see how far emperors were willing to go to achieve total victory. It would be impossible to question orders after innocent lives and crops were taken for the good of the empire. The people were hungry for the wealth of the army. Is this not a sign of weakness as the populace is not an everlasting commodity though the acquisition of land is ever growing. If strength is based on land, it is false for those on the land must be fed to work the fields. It was the year of four Caesars, never to be seen in the whole of the Roman empire. From June of AD68 to December AD69, defeat was met by two suicides first by Otho who "disliked the policy of fighting. Am I, he said, to expose all your splendid courage and valor to further risks? That would, I think, be too great a price to pay for my life."3 (85) Vitellius had begun the "civil war: he initiated our contest for the throne."4 (85) At the lost of the war, three months after taking power, Otho terminated his life. 2Gary Richardson " Strength through Cruelty, Economy, and Military” 3 "1135-1154 The Present Time" 85 4 ibid. "However, Italy found peace a more ghastly burden than the war. Vitellius soldiers scattered through all the boroughs and colonial towns, indulging in plunder, violence and rape". 5 "The soldiers marked down the richest fields and wealthiest houses for plunder".6 Had I not put the quote, shall I not be talking about the coffers of King Stephen? One exiled the astrologers and impoverished the towns to serve his gluttonous habits, the other (King Stephen) deified himself. "Roger, the great bishop of Salisbury, who had been second to take oath brought the crown to Stephen. For this reason, by the just judgment of God, he was later arrest and tormented by the very man he had made kind, and pitiful ruin became his lot".7 Those who threatened their power were removed or killed. Their land, property or churches were taken for the profit of the empires. A parallel can be drawn by Kings who kept their subjects in poverty through taxation and acquisitions of their lands and killing men of power. Roman Caesars taxed their people and killed other generals. They used their army for battles and took the land as a result. "King Steven’s was not limited to his deception of his cousin Matilda, but also to God, his nobles, and commoners alike. It was no more than a year into his rule that King Steven was unfaithful to his vows and came down brutally on his subjects"8 5Henry, Huntingdon,"The History of the English People 1000-1154" New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 90 6 ibid, 90 7 ibid,92 8 ibid, 92 "In what could sometimes be a disastrous kinds relied on God to see through the day. Great thanks was given to God by the Christian kings. In contrast to their worship, kings sacked churches, emptied their coffers, and went so far as to fortify these holy places as castles".9 All the while the kings believed they were as pious as the next, again deifying themselves above In his third year, it was decided that they would fight the barbarous people of Scotland of Kind David. "They do not know how to arm themselves in war, while you exercise your arms even in peacetime, so that in war you may feel no doubt of its outcome. Your head is covered by a helmet, your breast by a hauberk, your shins by leggings, your whole body by a shield. What is there to doubt as we march forward against the unarmed and naked? For a host that is unaccustomed to discipline is a hindrance to itself-both to victory when things go well, and to flight when things go badly".10 After having won the battle, King Stephen went to the various castles, "on the advice of evil men, scorned the awesome abasement of so many great bishops , and granted them nothing".11 He was insecure and killed anyone who had power but did not Villesius do the same as to keep his legion in fear. Power is abused as it is a form of fear. Total loyalty is obtained through fear or 3respect. In which none shall have when one suffers or the children of thy family do not eat or suffer the pains of one others abuse. A king is a king who is weak who kills out of fear of losing power. An emperor becomes Caesar for one who keeps the "population" from revolting out of fear of retribution. Civil war is not a possibility for the power of the army for the army controls the distribution of thy filling of thy stomach. Control of the army is a sign of arbitrary strength as it changes when the army grows and becomes stronger. Kings and Emporers are weak as weak as the lowest person of the land. Read More