Through their dominance and influence not only within the military but also within the nations politics and society, Japan’s leaders who possessed military background helped to develop, protect and drive Japan’s economy to one of world-class supremacy. However, to avoid mass generalisation, not all military leaders contributed positively to the evolution of Japan. Tojo Hideki, 40th Prime Minister of Japan, elected in 1941 (Trueman, 2000), caused chaos within his nation, politically and socially, with the effects being felt not only by Japan but universally. Due to Hideki’s power and decisions he devastated, politically, socially and economically his country and people, in addition to this he also created mass tension within their foreign relations with the rest of the Western world. Tojo Hideki undeniably played an important role in Japan’s history, however it was one of destruction and devastation.
To get there they had to think of ways to help them in their conquest of lands whether it is swords or other technologies. There political and environmental characteristics were pretty impressive, but who know which one was better. Rome was an empire known for its tough army and its vast line of rulers who conquered and crushed anyone who got in there way. The Maurya too was powerful with its rulers,
Medieval Europe and Medieval Japan were started around the same time, but did they have the same ideas going for them. They were on nearly opposite sides of the globe, with totally different culture, language, architecture, rituals, religions and absolutely no contact at all. Even though they had all his dividing them they still had the same basic medieval social structure. Medieval and Medieval Europe were simular in a surprising amount of ways. Soldiers have been a big part of medieval life for both cultures but the differences in their armies are quite small.
Han China and Imperial Rome had different cultures and ways on how to run their country which made them advanced and powerful. The Roman Empire and Han Dynasty were similar in many ways. Imperial Rome and Han China had highly centralized governments that made them powerful. Only wealthy men could participate in political affairs and they had more power. Han China and Imperial Rome were more advanced than any other empire because they built roads that helped the trade, and become more successful.
Those empires ruled many national groups that clamored for independence. The Balkan Peninsula caused tensions and therefore threatened to ignite a major war. Rivalry for control of the Balkans added to the tensions that erupted into World War 1. Advances in technology helped aid in making military forces in the war stronger. Every one of Europe’s Great Powers developed a excessive belief in its own cultures economic and military powers.
Most of the Crusaders who fought were either Christians or Knights from other empires. After, the Crusades there were many effects, whether Political or Economic, or Socially. Three effects of the Crusades that stood out to me the most were; that the Crusades lessened the power of the Pope Urban II, to me that showed me a Political Effect, another effect of the Crusades was that it weakened feudal nobility, to me that seemed like an Economic Effect. The final effect of the Crusades that I chose was that after the holy war came more trade and that effect led to cultural diffusion and that also led to riches, to me that was an Economic effect. With my three chosen effects they all changed the world or the course of history in a way.
Long-term causes of WW1: Imperialism is a big cause of WW1 because many countries were building up their empires; there were disagreements over who would control which areas of the World and countries were becoming jealous of other countries, this caused arguments between the countries. Nationalism was another cause, each country felt that there’s was the best and wanted there’s to be above all the others. They wanted to promote their culture and interests to other countries and try to control them. The two alliance systems were the Triple Entente (Britain, France and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary). Countries had started making treaties and non-aggression pacts and how if the joined
These rigorous warriors had to firmly conform to their masters to directly demonstrated respect to those above them in the social class, and they had to follow the bushido code, which was a unique Japanese code of conduct that was created in the 1600s. The bushido code worked impeccably well during war periods, but since the Tokugawa shogunate brought over two hundred years of peace and unity among Japan, the role of the bushido code drastically changed the samurai’s violent existence into one of civility, wisdom, and tranquility. With the warrior class suffering the most during an era of peace, Musui’s story contradicts the relationship between samurai ideals and actual samurai life with the personal account of Katsu Kokichi, who lived a life unworthy of the samurai ways during the Edo period. Kokichi, who officially took the name of Musui after his retirement, lived an adventurous life that can very well highlight the differences between a samurai of the Tokugawa period with one of earlier existence. Through a time of peace, samurai could hardly benefit in terms of finances and security since they were not needed as direly as during times of war.
Henry had to bring stability back to England. The king needed to win over the nobles if he was to remain secure as king, he needed a positive relationship with them. There were some nobles who did support Henry because of their Lancastrian backgrounds, then there were some that supported him due to them seeing him as mean to social and political advancement, then there were the nobles that opposed him; the Lambert and Warbeck rebellions show this. Getting the nobles to support him was a huge challenge that would take years for the king to accomplish as there were more nobles than the king. Over the course of the fifteenth century the English nobility had grown in power, however Henry VII was quite fortunate that 25% of leading noble lines had died out.
HST 12 - c. richard During times of great instability and chaos, a country or a nation needs a strong leader to bring forth a good change in favor of the country or nation. In many European nations, monarchy was the result of the want for a greater and stronger nation. The monarchy form of government is “based upon the undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person” and “the individual ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his position through heredity.” (“Monarchy”) Although many abused their powers, few monarchs are the sole creditors for the result of what many of the European nations are today. One great example of a monarch, who brought his nation in par with many successful European nations of the time, is Peter The Great, or Peter I, of Russia.