The financial approach was a tough period in finance; with a King that wanted to spend and go to war, and Wolsey had no choice but to bow to his majesty’s request. Wolsey was to follow on the financial policy of an extremely successful monarch with finances, in Henry VII. Wolsey’s balance sheet was a mixture of successes and failures; his aim was to manage the finances so that King’s policies were still affordable. He found a good source of income to raise funds for the French war. This was the largest tax ever and was extremely significant in Wolsey’s financial campaign; Henry would most likely not have raised the funds for the war given his lazy demeanour, leaving the monarchy in a large debt.
Acquiring this absolute power however, was no easy feat, and Caesar had well equipped himself through previous expeditions of Europe and the ancient world with all the resources necessary to gain power in Ancient Rome. One such "expedition" was Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul. On this expedition, Caesar went to great lengths to write a thorough book about his conquest, and to justify his expenditures to the Roman public and Senate. Through Gaul, Caesar found a way to acquire power and prestige for himself within the Roman political arena. It is debated however as to why Caesar wrote about Gaul, whether it be to bask in his glory of his nine-year campaign or to use as propaganda for the political upheaval he would soon mount against Rome.
The Roman Empire at this time was very large as it stretched from North Africa to the northern parts of the Britannica. Because of their vast amount of territory and relative peace in the empire, Roman emperors did not feel the need to expand and conquer further. Without the wealth that came about from conquests, the Roman government was forced to fund the army themselves, and although the military did not necessarily become weaker, the nature of the army changed from offensive to defensive. Men stopped joining the army due to this less glorious approach, and thus the army weakened. By the 4th century, a diminished military and the incompetence of new emperors eventually led to the downfall of the Roman Empire at the hands of invading Germanic people such as the Goths and Visigoths.
The comparison comes as both nations always try to influence or help other nations that need help with either military force or diplomacy. Adrian Goldsworthy showed to the readers the political and military reasons why Ancient Rome fell apart and compares their ups and downs to a nation now that has overcome their ups and downs and still be strong nation. Many nations now learn from past nation’s mistake and try their harder to overcome it and not to make the same decision again. The Romans were still be a great empire today if they had the written notes about the mistakes they made from one emperors to the other of from one form of government to the new form of government as the current nations have
The reform of finance and administration was the most important factor for Pitt’s domination of politics 1783-93 how far do you agree? On one had there is a strong suggestion that Pitts earlier political domination was made entirely by his skill as an administrator and financing his government. But the political situation at the time meant that there were many disadvantages facing him from very early on, hence the nickname the “mince pie” administration. There were many ways in which Pitt conquered over such problems like the Whigs and support within the Commons and the way he improved it, but what is the most important factor in his domination. Pitt from early on was a highly successful at implicating financial and administrative policies
154) After the rise of Julius Caesar the whole Mediterranean world became under roman legeslation. (pg.154) One of the most profound leaders under Julius Caesar, Marcus Cicero a philosopher who oppossed tyranny and political corruption. (pg.154) Cicero believed that monarchy, aristocracy and Democracy were the three principles of construction to a good government. (pg.155) Rome was more based on a legeslative attack, romans in the old days are more recollected for having great knowledge of the world we live in today. One of the most influential people in Rome was Marcus Cicero, a great philopsoper as we say and exam most of his work today we see a story of a honored and respected man as well as loyal, but his loyalty would prove to be his greatest downfall and which would lead to his exicution.
One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
Unlike Greece, where shifting may not have been easy but was at least constant, the Romans never planned an operational method to decide how new emperors would be designated. The choice was always open to debate between the old emperor, the Senate, the Praetorian Guard (the emperor's private army), and the military army. Gradually, the Praetorian Guard got total right to pick the new emperor, who compensated the guard who then became more prominent, propagating the vicious cycle. Finally in 186 A. D. when the army strangulated the new emperor, they began selling the throne to the highest bidder. Throughout the next 100 years, Rome had 37 different emperors - 25 of whom were removed from office by assassination.
As each new era ushers in change, there is always one individual that can be associated with facilitating these reforms, Lorenzo Medici and the Renaissance, Galileo and the Scientific Revolution, Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Predeceasing these infamous men is Caesar Augustus. Many argue that Augustus was reformer, others a revolutionary. Augustus was both; he took prior roman laws and tradition and reformed them in revolutionary ways. He kept the traditions and ideals that made Rome strong and used them to reshape a government that would dominate over the Mediterranean arena for the next 400 years.
. they had nevertheless had the effect of giving the populace a political importance such as it had in no other European country.11 13 What the English Civil Wars led to was a greater sense of personal representation in government than was the case in most of the continent—certainly than was the case in France, for example, that feared member of the auld alliance with Scotland, and the continental