Many argue that the rule of men leads to cruelty and constant wars, while this could have been avoided if a woman had ascended to the "throne". In this essay, I would like to consider both opinions and express my own ideas about this issue.
On the one hand, I recognize that during the reign of men, there were and are many wars and brutality, which is usually attributed to their innate natural instincts. For example, take one of the most famous rulers of Russia - Ivan IV the Terrible, who in 1558 began the Livonian War in the hope of gaining access to the Baltic Sea, and in 1565-1570, at the request of the Terrible, the state was divided into zemshchyna and oprichnina, when the latter created incredible horror and "blood flowed through the streets of cities". Another darkening event of his reign was the death of his eldest son - heir in 1581. According to one of the most popular proposals, it was Ivan the Terrible who killed his son in a fit of rage, thereby almost interrupting his denastia. And after these events, Ivan the Terrible is associated with many as a cruel ruler, but nevertheless no one even remembers the significant reforms that he carried out: military reform, which contributed to the creation of the Streltsy army, which greatly helped during the hostilities; economic reforms that introduced a single tax for every resident of the state and eliminated the fragmentation of the state; and these are not all reforms. So after all, the reign of Ivan IV led not only to destruction, but also to creation, but for some reason everyone remembered him as a tyrant.
If we consider Alexander III, who was the emperor of Russia from 1881 to 1894, we can make sure that the state did not participate in any political conflict during the years of his reign. He said: "Not a single centimeter of the earth is worth the spilled blood of a person," for this he was even given the nickname Peacemaker. But nevertheless, as in the 19th century conde, as now, they do not sing the praises of love for this, but on the contrary they reproach him, because during these years Russia did not develop in any way. So what is still better: to be a "cruel but progressive ruler or a calm and regressive one"?
As for the female rule, I would like to bring again an image from the history of Russia, namely Princess Olga (945-960). She cruelly took revenge on the Drevlian tribe, when they came to ask for her hand in marriage for their ruler, because they killed her husband Prince Igor. She buried the first messengers alive in the ground, roasted the second ones alive in a bath, and then personally went to the island and burned everyone there. What is this if not cruelty? But nevertheless, she is considered a brave and strong woman who was not afraid of a large tribe and conquered them for the death of her husband.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is easy to judge history from the outside, hundreds of years have passed, and we are discussing how it was necessary or unnecessary for the rulers to act, of course, it is easy for us to do this, because we did not live at that time directly, we cannot know everything that happened then. What if there was no other way out besides "cruelty" and the rulers of the states were right?
What do you tnink about it?
Do you agree or disagree?
Read this: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5ecdede6b202130413511629/ielts-essay-sample-j-a-little-about-everything-ielts-613799fb0f80696e4794ad8c?from=editor
#IELTS #ESSAY