One of the causes of the decline of the Roman and Han Empire is the internal problems within the state. The problem in the Han Empire involved the development of fractions within the ranks of the ruling elites. That led to backstabbing among the ruling elites which in turn reduced the effectiveness of the central government. Like the Han, the Roman Empire emperors faced internal opposition. One of the problems was that there was fewer that twenty- six claimants to the imperial throne, known as the “barracks emperors.” Generals was mainly who seized power, held it briefly, and then suddenly lost it between rivals.
This occurred sometime around 509 BC, and led to the creation of a new form of government called a republic.1 However, as the centuries passed, the republican dream slowly began to fade. Quite obviously, many things happened in the world of Rome that led to the eventual collapse of the Roman Republic. At around 133 BC, Rome was a republic. But less than a hundred years later, an emperor ruled it.1 An imperial system as a form of government was very different from the system that was envisioned by the Romans when they deposed the last king near the end of the 6th century BC. An imperial system was against everything Romans stood for.
This weakening began late in the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. Although his reign marked the height of the Ottoman Empire’s Golden Age, in his later years Suleyman became less actively involved in the affairs of state. In addition, his two most qualified successors plotted against him late in his life, and he had them executed. As a result, Selim II (known by some as “Selim the Drunkard”) became the next Sultan. He was
Also, many experts say that it fell because of the lack of heart the people had to the Empire, the rise of Christianity, it was too immense to govern and protect, the decline of the economy and jobs, the army being made up of mostly foreigners, and outside invaders. Thus, one can say that the Empire collapsed more internally than externally. The first reason why the Western Roman Empire fell was because the people that lived in it had a lack of heart in the Empire. People didn’t believe the Empire was worth saving anymore. As Strayer, Gatzke, and Harbison state in their textbook The Course of Civilization states “The basic trouble was that very few inhabitants of the empire believed that the old civilization was worth saving… the overwhelming majority of the population had been systematically excluded from political responsibilities.
Becoming a governor in his region of Rome wasn’t good enough, he wanted to be crowned king and serve as a dictator for life, something that Rome didn’t have for five hundred years. His need for absolute power, to become greedy and to bring Rome under Monarchy corrupted him and altered his thinking. Instead of thinking about the Roman people, he was thinking about himself, and that made him a bad leader. Another reason that he wasn’t a good leader was that he was weak. Although he appeared to be strong to the commoners, he was seen as weak to his own Senate members, especially Cassius.
It had a decline because their emperor died, the economy fell and Germanic tribes invaded Rome. The Roman Empire declined from Economic and Military reasons. It declined because it ended the Pax Romana period with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 152 AD, who was the emperor that made the Roman Empire reach its peak, which began violence. Aurelius’s son, Commodus, bankrupted treasury in 192 AD and over the next century, Romans began to fight each other. The economy went down because of the rising prices.
James I has always been viewed as an extravagant king, who didn't care about finances and who was more addicted to his pleasure. He had a few defects which possibly was harmful for the conservation of estate and government: His ignorance and failure to appreciate poverty and lack of strength, although he had the royal prerogative he did not use it as much as he needed to. He overrated himself and despited the other princes. Also, he was too idle and too little concerned with business. If he wanted something he would do anything that is in his power to get it, regardless of costs.
He was not open up to changes; he preferred to stay in his old ways. When his wife had purchased a new sofa, he was not comfortable with the change. He wished he still had the old one which he would be more comfortable. This goes on to show that he was trapped in his own way and does not readily accept changes. The narrator showed little appreciation for his wife and had no friends.
The apartment is also small and cluttered with spaces not suited for a walker. With garbage disposal being on the first floor, there is a possibility that an excess of garbage in the apartment will lead to a pest infestation. Secondly, there’s the fact that the patient doesn’t seem like he will be compliant with his new medication and nutrition regimen. He already states that he doesn’t like taking the medication and appears to not understand the importance of them either. Since family is unavailable to assist, this leaves Mr. Trosack on his own.
His father, Unoka, was a well-known for his laziness in the village. He was the root of Okonkwo’s embarrassment. Since his childhood, Okonkwo was ashamed of his father, who, “In his day he was lazy and improvident and was quite incapable of thinking about tomorrow” (04). In the standard of his clan, Unoka was a coward, lazy, and wastrel man who spent money wastefully. When he was a child, a boy once called Okonkwo’s father an Agbala, witch means “a woman” as well as a man who has no title.