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.
After the French Revolution though, the republic slowly began shifting to a totalitarian regime, first under the Committee of Public Safety and then completely under Napoleon Bonaparte .The facts show that the American Revolution was more successful in establishing a stable and long-lasting republican government that started a precedent for Europe, while the French Revolution’s republic failed to last, being turned into a totalitarian regime. Events leading up to the American and French Revolutions occurred for a similar reason: unfair representation. The people in the American colonies became progressively upset with Britain and its Parliament when they refused the colonists’ representation, while still imposing many different taxes on the colonists. Upset over this tax on one of their most valued imports, the colonists dumped all the tea into the Boston Harbor during the Boston Tea Party. This showed that the colonists were willing, and able, to live without depending on the British government.
FROM ATHENS TO AMERICA: WHY GREAT CIVILIZATIONS FAIL Roger D. Masters Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor Emeritus of Government Dartmouth College History shows that dominant powers (whether called Hegemons or Empires) confront challenges to their status as circumstances change. Toynbee called it “Challenge and Response.” Some hegemonic powers adapt successfully as did the Roman Republic when geographic expansion led to insufficient military strength and communications to police longer frontiers. Others, like ancient Athens, fail to change strategy and tactics when their expanding power confronted new obstacles. In this case, the result was a loss of Athenian primacy after the city was sacked and Alexander the Great’s Empire established rule over the Eastern Mediterranean. Alexander’s Empire was even more evanescent, however, because his military victories were never followed by effective planning for the inevitable transition from battlefield to administering law and order.
Who were the major players in the Spanish Civil War and how did they affect its course and outcome? For the first time in Spain’s history, 1931 marked the year that changed the country into an orderly democratic republic. The exile of King Alfonso XIII in 1931 because of the loss in support from the Spanish people only highlighted that the monarchy was doomed. Therefore, the Second Spanish Republic ruled from 1931 until 1937 and was under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera whose main aims was to modernize Spain through liberal, democratic means. Although, the development of change already faced opposition from right-winged supporters, including rich landowners who feared social changes that the Republic would try to implement.
While Diocletian was co-emperor, there was a general order and a quick response to military threats. However, these reforms encouraged ambition in the co-rulers and their generals. Therefore, when Diocletian retired from power in 305 C.E., those ambitions led to internal struggles and civil war. The man who emerged out of this Civil war as the victor was Constantine, son of one of the tetrarchs, who claimed the throne of the entire Roman Empire for himself in 306 C.E., reuniting the two districts of the empire after approximately 22 years of division into two districts. Defeating most of his enemies and opposition by 313 C.E., he overcame his last rival in 324 C.E.
The last years of Henrys reign was dominated by conservative and reformist factions . In this essay I will assess the extent of the threat created due to the rivalry of factions that had affected the stability of the government. The execution of Cromwell (1940) was a success for conservatives as was also Henrys marriage to Catharine Haword. The marriage was a gateway to influencing Henry by carving out a new royal policy via Catharine H. This increased tension between the Reformists and conservatives and so the reformists took action to destroy the reputations of Cahrine H , Duke of Norfolk and Gardiner. On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government .
There are several reasons and causes for the wars, including growing religious tensions, weak monarchs, foreign intervention, the role of Catherine de Medici and the existence of weak Kings coupled with strong Nobles. These factors provided shaky foundations, which, when confronted with a collapsing economy, led to rebellion and civil war. One of the most important reasons for war in the second half of the century was the existence of weak kings. During the first half of the century, France was led by domineering Monarchs, who kept control with an authoritarian style. In addition, the wars only ended when a strong King returned to the Throne; Henry IV after the ninth war.
“What set the limits to Ottoman Expansion in this period?” After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, there remained a continuous threat to the powers of central Europe that many had not previously anticipated. The Ottoman Empire spent much of the two centuries after their successful capture of the city in an onslaught of expansion, pushing both eastwards as far as Hungary and westwards to Iraq. However, the reasons as to why the Empire – with its obvious military prowess – doesn’t expand further than these boundaries has remained a question under debate amongst historians and ultimately leads to a number of points which should be considered. The key limitation that faced by the Ottoman Empire was the ultimate autonomy of the Sultan and the subsequent disasters encountered if the leaders had shortcomings, however other factors such as the military revolution in Europe, the financial strain on the Turkish Empire and the nature of their opponents and resources also contributed highly to the limits of Ottoman Expansion. If the expansionary activities of the Ottoman Empire during this period are examined chronologically then it can be seen that many of the conquest states are added to the Empire in groups: Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt submit to the Empire within the space of three years (1515-1517) whilst Trebizond, Karaman, Otrano and Serbia are all added between 1459 and 1480.
As every great Empire declines and falls, the intrusive Turks were the main reason why several strong and stable civilizations were torn apart. The impact of Turkic invasions on the Byzantine and Islamic worlds were similar because they were the main cause of the decline of these two major empires by conquering the lands as well as the control of the regions they invaded, also bringing with them their Sunni religion the Turkish invasions greatly impacted the religion of the Byzantine and Abbasid Empires, however, the invasions had overall more positive effects on the Islamic world while they negatively effected the Byzantine Empire. The Turkish invasions conquered the lands of both the Byzantine and Abbasid Empires, which eventually led to the decline and fall of the entire Empire as a whole. In 945, the Abbasid Empire began to decline as it was invaded by the Buyids of Persia who were later replaced by the Seljuk Turks. For the next two centuries the Turkish military leaders ruled over the parts of the empire it conquered until it was eventually no longer the Abbasid Empire.
There are many successes and failures of self-determination in the Middle East in the early twentieth century. In the analysis of the documents some successes might be that writers are asking for a home for the Zion Jewish people, the Ottoman Empire, and Syria. Failures might be the request for guardianship of the people to be entrusted to more advanced nations. Another failure might be that the General Syrian Congress opposed the creation of a Jewish commonwealth inside their borders, and also opposed any migration of such peoples into their country. Looking at the two maps ([doc.1], [doc.6]) I can see some successes and some failure.