And to prevent treason, the King created a system of imperial spies which were his “eyes and ears”. As the Greeks were never politically stable, the Persians were very particular on how they were ruled. The social customs of these two empires are dramatically different. The Persians, who followed Zoroastrianism, believed in one god, Ahura Mazda.
The Paris peace settlement was a key in both of the leaders foreign policies, as they both were weakened in the treaty of Versailles. Both of the leaders put forward a very radical fascist ideology that idealized national expansion and military strengths as the proof of national strength and prestige of the country. Differences in the two fascist leaders policies start to show in their aims and the planning of them. As Hitler was trying to make Germany the absolute dominant power in Europe, Mussolini's aims were more on the prestige, as he wanted to make Italy "Respected and feared". But the similarities were also great as they both were great opportunists and aggressive expansionists, they wanted to expand their countries to become the dominant powers in Central Europe (Germany) and the Mediterranean (Italy).
If a military expert or the president is questioned, he might think wars are good because they can boast about military efficiency. People go to war to prove a point or to fight for one’s country. In the war for independence, the colonists fought for freedom from Great Britain. There were many people who died or were injured, but they all risked their lives for an ideal, the essence of freedom. However, there are others who go to war for greed and power.
To the Druids, this is against their ingrained convictions: no one god can control the whole world. This leads to the consequence that caused the extinction of Druidism. At first the Romans considered both Druidism and Christianity the threats to their power; therefore they put a lot of oppression over the followers of these two religions to the point of execution. Unlike Druidism, Christian belief was centered to one figure; therefore
Plautius, the roman general of the time was also very instrumental in the invasion, there is speculation as to whether Vespasian was heavily under his influence and perhaps deserves less credit for his actions. Also, the Roman classical sources of Biographers such as Josephus, one of the foremost classical writers on Vespasian during the conquest, could have been heavily bias. An extract from the Roman Biographer Suetonius offers and excellent recollection of the magnitude of Vespasian’s involvement in the conquest of Britain when he writes: “…he fought thirty battles with the enemy. He reduced to subjection two powerful nations, more than twenty towns, and the isle of Vectis” From this we understand that Vespasian was important in conquering a huge amount of areas including a whole island. We also learn that his skill as a military leader was significant as fighting thirty battles is a very considerable figure.
In regards to almost every failure and success incurred by the state of Rome, the deciding factor was almost always the military at the core. To put it short, it was the use of effective and successful doctrines and strategies that made the victories of Roman militaries as pervasive as they were. It is argued by many that the success of the Roman Empire, considered by many to be the greatest empire in history, was due to its military power. This paper will trace the history of the Roman Military from the early periods of Rome to its many reformation with later emphasized the tactics used by the famous Legions of Rome. Beginnings Davis 2 Under the Etruscan Ruler Tarquin, in mid-700 B.C., the Roman army was formed.
One of the best examples of the Duke's outstanding generalship is Ramillies. Even though the Allied and French forces were numerically equivalent, Marlborough's military dexterity and expertise allowed him to defeat Villeroy (also spelled Villeroi) at Ramillies.2 In order to argue this point, I will examine Marlborough in this battle at the tactical level by using the Principles of War. Europe was weary after the devastation of the Thirty Years' War. The European countries found that war was very costly--in both money and lives. "It was an era dominated by the negativeness of the defensive--conduct a siege, make a march, threaten a flank, but avoid the enemy army.
Roman society worked by everyone submitting to the emperor and sacrificing to the gods. That these Christians would not accept societal norms must have been infuriating for many romans, and is the starting point of their hatred towards the Christians. The roman religion which saw seeing forgiveness as performing a set of rituals had no interest in some morality or a set of dos and don’ts, which the Christians lived by. This was considered to be the realm of philosophy. There was no great concern for the afterlife here, and Polytheism with its acceptance of an unlimited number of gods meant that the society that practiced it was adaptable to change.
Their motivations to help were political, military and economical but above all ideological. The importance of foreign intervention (mainly Germany and Italy) in the outcome of the war played a big role because of their power in Europe and the high amount of resources they sent, which helped Franco to win. “Three factors chiefly explain the Nationalist victory…. the greater foreign aid given to the Nationalist”(Perry 203). Beyond that, historians often consider the Spanish civil war as a prelude to World War II, opposing fascism and communism.
There has to be a trigger to make them no longer have any innocence, and sacrifice themselves as a person. Our Creator is not evil; he wouldn’t make us to be like that either. Great thinkers believed that humans are evil. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and also Sigmund Freud believed that humans were evil. Towards the end of his life, Freud became largely disenchanted with the human species and considered us one of the worst types of animals.