Generally, in history “the great leaders” of revolutions have been revered for their military and violent conquests. This historic trend to label violent and victorious leaders as revolutionary is something we can see to be very prevalent in our own nation’s history. In Russian history, the same case can be argued and supported by individuals such as Trotsky. With Trotsky’s strategy of any “means” at all, including all out terror, to reach a certain end for a revolution a certain question arises about the nature of revolution itself. As seen by the efforts of Katherine The Great, violence does not necessarily have to be the way of facilitating social change. Does by nature a revolution have to imply some form of violence or terror on either side of the struggle? Does a leader who achieves victory through inhumane forms of violence deserve historical reverence? Who is the better leader, a calculating leader who converses about decisions or a militarized leader who will quite literally kill anyone who gets in their way?