After Suleyman and Akbar the Elite’s in charge for example Aurangzeb starting taxing those who where Non-Muslim, and in the Ottoman Empire this happened as well. Both powers eventually declined after Akbar and Suleyman. In being religiously diverse in widespread areas there was one similarity between the two Empires. In both empires in the golden age they did not mind other religious practices going on. Although the Ottomans did tax them for being Non –Muslim they still were unharmed.
This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear. The 49 year redemption payments were a huge limiting factor in allowing peasants economic freedom to then have social freedom, and class was still a major issue even if it had been reduced. The highly inflated land prices that ensued meant that very few peasants could afford land, and Alexander II did nothing to resolve this. It does lend to the idea of his ‘radical’ reforms being fairly reluctant as he did not go further with them. Alexander III took an even more conservative view during his reign, repealing many of Alexander II’s social
Despite its imperfections, the Articles were able to provide the Colonies ability to conduct diplomacy and a sense of colonial unity. However it lacked many aspects to make a strong governmental organization. One of which is, the inability to regulate currency. During the Revolution, many colonies lacked any form of effective currency and as a result they developed their own state currency. Over time the currency lost its value due to inflation which devastated colonial economies.
Both empires remained for long periods of time. The use of an organized bureaucracy contributed to this. With this organized system, there was control and order which allowed the civilizations to survive. As in most civilizations, Han China and Imperial Rome had belief systems. Han China used a philosophy known as Confucianism and Imperial Rome had religious tolerance meaning people could follow any religion they would like.
One aspect of his reign that is often seen in a positive light is the artistic reform that occurred in the Amarna period. Overall he had a short reign that did not achieve much, and yet did not leave much of a negative impact on Egypt. Akhenaten's reign brought about massive religious reform, deemed by most as a failure. His choice to switch from the traditional worship of many gods to the worship of only one god brought about massive social and political changes in Egypt. Certainly these changes were massive, quite abrupt and differed drastically from the norm; however that does not necessarily make them bad.
A government was established in which people were elected into upper house and lower house, however the governors rarely made an appearance. Their independance meant that they had a wider franchise so they could pass useful acts to benefit themselves. Lack of communication was a major issue between the two, as Britain was over 3000 miles away. This meant that it was extremely difficult for Britain to have any involvement with the colonies, which resulted to salutary neglect. It could be argued that salutary neglect weakened the relationship, however the colonist's may have enjoyed this freedom to do what they wanted and make there own decisions.
To what degree of success and failure self-determination had shaped the Middle East in the 20th century all depends on the definition of ‘self-determination’. Self-determination, as I will use it in this essay is the vigor with which nations of the Middle East, or the former Ottoman Empire, attempted to preserve age-old traditions, languages and practices while all the while modernizing their society to match that of Europe and the United States. With the context of ‘self-determination’ established, it’s safe to say the Middle East was overall successful at keeping it’s traditions intact but was ultimately unable to move their civilization forward and in the end, was smothered by foreign influences. The Ottoman Empire originated in 1451 and was at the peak of political and economic power during the century that followed the reign of Mehmed II. New conquests extended its domain well into central Europe and throughout the Arab portion of the old Islamic caliphate, and a new amalgam of political, religious, social, and economic organizations and traditions was institutionalized and developed into a living, working whole.
The Han Empire began in 206BC after the defeat of the Qin army by Prince Liu Bang. It arose after people were profoundly dissatisfied with the autocratic rule under the Qin leaders. The prince continued ruling the people in the same traditional ways as was under the Qin leaders but gradually incorporated Confucian ideals in their legalist form of government. The Mauryan/Gupta India Empire came up in 320BC uniting many different groups with after the agreement by leaders from both sides of the independent empires. The methods of control in the Han Empire and Mauryan/Gupta had both similarities and differences.
China was a closed unit compared to Rome who was more mingled structured. To conclude Han china and imperial Rome of the classical period were more alike than different. Each was ruled by a single ruler and citizens had a little control over making choices. Their main
This organization and stability provided yet another means for Christianity to earn converts. Christianity’s growing importance in the Mediterranean basin and Europe is likely the result of the emotional connection that the religion provided in the face of political turmoil that the sterile Roman mythology was not able to offer.To the east of Rome, the empire survived and continued, in the form of the Byzantines, uninterrupted for nearly a thousand years after Rome’s fall. Although the Gupta empire declined, Indian culture continued largely unchanged despite political transitions, much the Byzantines. At the beginning of the period, Rome was a