Many people who live in India know and worship the leader Asoka, or Ashoka, up to this day. But it is debatable whether he was a ruthless conqueror or an enlightened ruler. Asoka was a leader of the Mauryan Empire in India, from about 268 BCE to 232 BCE. He was born in 304 BCE, and became king at the age of 34, and died in 232 BCE at the age of 72. When Asoka ascended to the throne, he started a conquest called the Conquest of Kalinga.
There are some people that believe he was actually enlightened. However, based on his expanding empire, his greed, and forcing people to follow his rules, Asoka is a ruthless conqueror. Asoka was a ruthless ruler because he was responsible for killing a lot of people. According to the map of document A it states,” Asoka invaded Kalinga in 261 BCE.
So the question is, what is Ashoka? A ruthless conqueror or an enlightened ruler? After the severe war against the Kalingans, Ashoka realized that he was he misguided and performed a spiritual transformation. He had became a Buddhist.
Ashoka had many great strategies to claim land. Ashoka lived a royal because he ruled many people and had many great things. He had many violence wars that helped Ashoka out because he got lot’s of land and took lot’s of people for his army to fight. Was Ashoka a ruthless conqueror or enlightened ruler? Ashoka was an enlightened ruler because of two reasons: he out thinked the others and promoted a strong empire.
Asoka was the ruler of the Mauryan Empire, which consisted of almost all of India, from 273 BCE to 232 BCE. Once he conquered Kalinga, Asoka felt guilty and sought to find a guru to find enlightenment. After sitting beneath the Bodhi tree, Asoka emerged as a more fulfilling leader. Throughout his life, he proved himself to be an enlightened ruler by converting to Buddhism, creating the Asokan edicts, giving gifts to the poor, and devotedly improving his empire.
Many people may say that Asoka was a ruthless conqueror because of his conquest of Kalinga which was a bloody battle where many people died and many more were driven out of their country, but I bet the evidence I will show you will make you believe he was an enlightened ruler. From 268 BCE to 232 BCE Asoka was the ruler of the Mauryan Empire, which is now known as India. During that time many of his actions shows that he was enlightened. First, the conquest of Kalinga which many people think was ruthless was something that the Mauryan people needed so I believe that battle was one of an enlightened ruler rather than a ruthless conqueror. Asoka can also be considered an enlightened ruler because he went on a pilgrimage looking for a teacher and after finding a Buddhist monk and following his instructions he was able to understand history, reject violence, and form ideas that had never been thought of before.
In Ancient India, the people named their flag after Asoka. He did great things for the Mauryan Empire that gave a good ending, but were the means of the ending just? Asoka ruled Ancient India and changed the history of it doing good and bad things for himself but for his empire. Was it being Ruthless or Enlightened? His responsibility for many deaths, his wanting of unfair wars, the unjust laws all clearly imply that Asoka is a Ruthless Conqueror.
The story of Siddhartha tells the tale of a boy who grows up in a wealthy Brahman family. He grows to be intelligent and handsome and is loved by all his family and friends. Siddhartha seems to have everything he could want but eventually becomes frustrated with his life. He seeks enlightenment and believes that the elders in his community have nothing more to teach him spiritually. Much to his parent’s frustration, Siddhartha decides he needs to leave home and find the inner peace he seeks.
Siddhartha was confident he would find his true desire. Along with this journey, Siddhartha encounters many people/groups who try to teach him enlightenment, but he did not realize the suffering that would go along with this trip. As the
Glorious men have graced the earth and have left significant impressions on the following generations. Alexander the Great suits that profile like none other. As arguably one of the most influential military leaders in history, Alexander conquered the majority of the known world, including large-scale empires such as the Persian. Succeeding his father, Philip II, to the throne at the age of 20, Alexander commanded an already skilled military, which he schooled further in the beginning of his reign. Even militarily significant empires had no chance against Alexander 's military brilliance and so he constructed one of the largest empires in history.
Therefore, one of his personalities/traits is that he is very
On top of this, he was a respected author who had several books to his name. This made him one of the most-educated people of his time. Worth noting is that his achievements contributed to scholarship because several people and particular to his Indian community looked up to him. Besides, he and other scholars had undergone through different experiences in the hands of the white man. For instance, he mentions the idea of the “great mystery” at the chapel when he was together with other scholars.
The world belongs to vampires now, and twenty-one-year-old small town girl Fay Turner thought it meant that every human like her was destined to be a slave or a servant. Then, William, an ancient vampire, came and set her free. Enrolled in the prestigious New York Academy, alongside humans and vampires alike, she learns that she wasn’t one amongst many; she was a victim. Never again.
The story of George Orwell, "1984", is a warning of what the world could become. That by that time, the world will have become a place like it´s described in the book. It harms the problems and highlights them in such a way that it creates a "dystopian" world, where everyone lives in a lie. Orwell mentions three fundamental aspects to the stability of society, that will have become their lifestyle: One, "War is peace,...”, violence engenders passive behavior.
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
