People say that the works of William Shakespeare are analyses and reflections of our human condition; whether of the story is about doomed love, political ambition turned to bloodshed, or situational humor which turned the simplistic things of life into the funniest of material. Yet, very rarely can people see such reflections of life in Shakespeare, which can also be made in real history. After all, Shakespeare himself was not a historian. He was a starving playwright who wrote propaganda pieces to entertain and (partially) educate the plebeians and royals of Elizabethan England. However, such characters such as Richard III, Marc Antony, and Prince Hal (King Henry V) can be reflected in terms of their styles of personality and leader ship in numerous figures throughout our history, whether if such people brandished a sword and crown or a cigar and glass of whiskey. The purpose of this essay is to examine how the leadership theory of how leaders are made, not born, can be seen in the works of British literature (The Henriad: Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, & Henry V) and can also transcend into real figures of England’s history (Sir. Winston Churchill).
First off, the name is pronounced Nietzsche (as in “KNEE-CHA”); not “NITCH”, or “NEETCH”, or “KNEE-CHEE”. However, the pronunciation of this 19th Century German philosopher’s name doesn’t change the fact that he is one of the most referenced philosophers in pop culture. Such references range from the opening of the 1982 fantasy film Conan the Barbarian with his famous quote “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”, to the Black Sabbath 2013 song God is Dead?. For those who know nothing of the man, Frederich Nietzsche was a philosopher who wrote and lectured in the latter half of the 1800’s, donned a walrus mustache, and believed that everything in this life is meaningless. In order to give meaning to life, we must overpower everyone else and obtain our wants and desires. To do so, makes you an “übermensch” (or superman).
His name is one that brings memories of a mad genius; a cinema auteur with balls of steel. He was a man who would redefine the Western genre and horrifically expose the true nature of inhumanity and violence, that the old school studios and television audiences took for granted; while at the same time, serving as the ground work for the newest generations of directors and Hollywood rebels. This is the story of Sam Peckinpah.
He emerged out of nowhere and became the face of Hollywood’s golden age. On camera, he was the ultimate swashbuckler and rogue lover; yet beyond the silver screen, Errol Flynn couldn't be any different from what audiences thought he was. For he had an extreme lust for life, was married three times, had numerous love affairs, spent money like it grew on trees, sailed entire oceans, wrote about his involvement in international wars and revolutions, and died penniless. Even today, he is still debated, whether or not he was a human embodiment of alpha male masculinity or a drunken womanizer who used the American studio system as a tool to get what he desired. A saint or a sinner. Yet all can agree that he was fact, not fiction.
To say that the American Revolution was a radical experiment to implicate democracy to the agitated populations of Britain’s colonies, is certainly a sensible statement. Yet, it cannot be shared by the private memories of those who participated in it. In Alfred Young’s book The Shoemaker and the Tea Party, the story of the Bostonian cobbler and patriot partisan, George Hewes, is one of how the ideals of what one may call the American Hypocrisy Story (land of the free, home of the brave, all are created equal, justice is blind, your vote counts, business is honest, the good guys win, law enforcement is on your side, your standard of living will never decline, etc.) emerged from this treasonous, ironic, and metaphorical middle finger to the world’s strongest superpower at the time. Alfred Young’s words apply to the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the experiences of George Hewes, in a manner which allows the reader to create their own understanding and conclusions about how the events leading up to and defining the American Revolution, ought to be remembered by current and future generations.
In 1538, the Mediterranean Gulf of Arta would become the battle ground between two opposing forces. As the Ottoman Empire seeks to expand it’s territory and cultural influence into the heart of Europe, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Venice, and even the Papal States, fear for the loss of their status as world powers, their sovereignty as independent nations, and their freedom as human beings. For if their leaders and people were to act blissfully ignorant to the marauding hordes of the Ottoman Turks upon their arrival to their doorsteps, they would surly become lambs of God among the wolves of Allah. Fueled by political and religious ideologies, these diametrically opposed entities would use the latest of military technology and strategy to shed their blood. For the victors would become the most dominant naval force of the Mediterranean Sea; and remembered by the annals of time and history as a new generation of ruthless conquerors or faithful crusaders. The purpose of this essay is to is to analyze the critical intangibles and x-factors which determined the Battle of Preveza’s outcome, and how it shaped it’s political fallout for both the Europeans and the Ottoman Empire.