After Suleyman and Akbar the Elite’s in charge for example Aurangzeb starting taxing those who where Non-Muslim, and in the Ottoman Empire this happened as well. Both powers eventually declined after Akbar and Suleyman. In being religiously diverse in widespread areas there was one similarity between the two Empires. In both empires in the golden age they did not mind other religious practices going on. Although the Ottomans did tax them for being Non –Muslim they still were unharmed.
How stable was the Weimar Republic 1924-29 The real increase in prosperity experienced by many, and the cultural vitality of the period, gave support to the view that these years were indeed the ‘golden years’. However, historians have generally tended to question this stability because it was in fact limited in scope therefore these years could be seen as ‘deceptive stability’ also. Any disruption to the world’s trade or finance markets was bound to have a particularly damaging effect on the uncertain German economy. In reality, the middle years of the Weimar Republic were stable only in comparison with the other periods before and after. Weimar’s condition suggests that the fundamental problems inherited from war and the crisis has not been resolved.
(doc 3) The attitude Han shows is both positive and negative because the people will either agree or disagree with some of the inventions made. Roman attitude towards technology was characterized to show off their power rather than simpler innovations. Technology in Rome was limited and not all that interesting, The only technology that interested them was improved weapons. No reason to improve led to a decline in their society. Some believed when Rome could not expand anymore, their culture and society died.
How accurate is it to say that the Yorkists kings restored authority in England in the years 1471-1485? Both Richard III and Edward IV, two of the Yorkist Kings between 1471 and 1485, went some way to restoring royal authority. However, their successes in restoring authority during their reigns were certainly limited. While Edward IV did remove much of the threat of the Lancastrians, he was unable to control the nobility which led to the usurpation of Edward V’s throne by Richard Duke of Gloucester in 1483. Moreover, Richard III was very good at politics, having a lavish court and is good at using propaganda, yet he is highly unpopular among both the people and the nobility; his reign only lasts two years before the throne is usurped by Henry Tudor.
Connor is very smug about his views of Terra Nullius and he believes there are mistakes that have been made throughout history that many historians are not aware of or choose to ignore. Connor makes a very bold statement when he says "until
Was Augustus a consummate politician? In the eyes of the average Roman citizen, Augustus was a consummate politician and excellent administrator. He achieved this reputation through his manipulative propaganda and administrative changes that benefited the people of Rome, such as his political and social reforms. However, Augustus faced opposition from both outside and within the family, including threats from Cornelius Gallus and his daughter Julia, which gives evidence of defective aspects of his principate and flaws in his administration. However, while Augustus was not consummate, he is still considered by many as Rome's greatest emperor.
Augustus was therefore able to use magistracy as a reward for supporting him and also allowed him to have many supporters within the Senate and among the officials. During the republic, the position of aedileship had not been highly sought after due to the fact that it resulted in prominence for its owner. However, Augustus had taken away many traditional functions of the aedile gradually. This includes control of grain supply in 22BC, control of games in 22BC, control of aqueducts in 11BC and in 6 so too did they loose control of the fire service. These responsibilities were replaced by praetors and
The Egyptians, however, were different in the fact that they were led by the Pharaoh. The pharaoh was the ultimate leader, and the high priests were under him in the social hierarchy. Each pharaoh was seen as a god to his people. The system of government was headed by the pharaoh, and then left up to a vizier (chief minister) to oversee the society. The Egyptians believed in the afterlife as well, but again much differently than the Sumerians as they believed that it was peaceful and joyful.
One could say that the differences were in some cases staggering.11 Egypt was a far more optimistic society as far as beliefs, and artwork goes, whereas, Mesopotamia tended to favor a more strictly functional outlook. One may wonder, where and how these differences became so stark. There is no clear answer to this question. It could be assumed that they came about due to variations in geography, exposure to outside invasion and influence, and different beliefs, however, it can be difficult to guess why, despite the amount of trade and war that occurred between the two that they did not imitate each other more. 12 One of the places where these differences were most prominent was in the roles, and treatment of women.
Paragraph 2: Egypt believed in a more hopeful outlook while Mesopotamia didn’t thinking that the gods were partying at the human’s expense. This is because… * Egypt had more security leading them to not be as highly militarized and have more peace than Mesopotamia due to many factors including the cataracts on the Nile River * Egypt also had predictable annual floods of the Nile River bringing surplus and prosperity to the citizens (till 2200 BCE when Egypt had a dry spell and diminished their views of the Pharaoh) * Believed highly ranked Egyptians had access to eternal life and even some peasants (All depended how far you were buried from the tomb of the pharaoh after dead) * This lead to Egyptians believing in their Pharaoh who brought messages from god and also that god was there to help them so life would continue forever. * On the other hand, Mesopotamia was an area of upheaval and constant fighting * Unlike Egypt, they viewed humankind as caught in a disorderly world subject to quarrelling gods who would fight at the human’s