Eastern and Western European countries had many differences on economics and political structures. Both the East and the West tried to achieve an absolute monarchy, which can be described as a type of government where the monarch has complete rule over everything. Although both had an absolute monarchy at some point, they were structured differently and one much more successful than the other. In Eastern Europe the members of nobility had almost all of the control over the poor peasants who lived in their community. They controlled their judicial and economical state.
The Han Dynasty of China and the Pax Romana coexisted in different regions of the world for a short period of history. Each of them had their own belief of government. For the Han Dynasty it was all about following the Confucian values that had been established, and for the Romans, it was almost a new era of Roman rule, this time with less expansionism. While there were many similarities between the two, there were also significant differences because of things such as societal practices, religion, and power structure. Militaries were different, cultural outlook was different; these were things that ultimately would affect each empire in the end.
Japan during the Muromachi Period was known not to have isolation policies enforced by its government(unlike Japan’s later years). It’s geography naturally made it more isolated over other regions around it, and it wasn’t until 1543 until Portugal actually landed in Japan for the first time. It was also known that religion practices that Japan had during this time were not entirely regulated by the government. With the constant warfare going on through the years, many people turned to religion as an output. The most dominant religion that derived off of Buddhism would have to be Zen Buddhism, other religions included most notably Shinto.
One of the supporters Chuhung (1535-1615) once mentioned that there were no big differences between the Buddhists teaching because they were all based on Chan Buddhism. (Amstutz 1997, 4) At the same time, people did not like the monks and they doubted their actions. Additionally, smart people usually studied hard in examination to be the government officials. So people with high socio-economic status did not focus much on Buddhism while the ordinary groups were interested in Buddhism,
Over thousands of years ago in Ancient Greece many early civilizations formed in making a powerful civilized society. Many civilizations were successful at one point, but other civilizations did not have as much success. Much success was because of the size of the army and in addition the power one civilization had. One early successful civilizations that did not rely so much on the size of the army or society, but relied more on the quality of the army and making sure everyone works as one unit. Sparta was a city-state located in Ancient Greece that was based off a strict warrior society known as Lacedaemon.
As long as the emperor maintained the Mandate of Heaven, he would continue to command complete control. The Gupta Empire however took the opposite approach. Their government was similar to the Persian Empire in the sense that it was divided into provinces. Each province had viceroys who were governors responsible for the administration of the province. The provinces were divided into districts which had its own local administration.
China and India could easily become a totalitarian regime because these countries have a huge population where many still not politically organized. Because of that great masses are superfluous and can be sacrificed for the greater good of the rest (Arendt 9). One could add that these societies consist of a lot of different ethnicity which with the use of an ideology could be politically united. The Chinese government is already since decades busy creating unity and using communism as their ideology. Although China is by far not a totalitarian regime.
“As we all know the Roman Empire, big empires go down if the borders are not well-protected”- (Mark Rutte). This quote was chosen because it says that even big empires go down if they are not well protected. One example of this was The Roman Empire, it was a big empire and was the most extensive political and social structured in western civilization, but since they weren´t well protected it fell. The Ancient Roman Army is different from the Roman´s Army nowadays. One example of this is the Roman Army, back then they weren’t allowed to marry while they were serving the army, and nowadays they are free to marry and free to have their own rights.
On the political side, European countries had heavy influence amongst politicians or rulers of African and Asian countries. In most cases, Europeans ruled their colonies with the help of, and sometimes completely through, intermediaries and collaborators. Because of their small numbers relative to local populations, most European colonizers resorted to indirect rule, relying on the governments that were already there but exerting control over their leaders. Now, this isn’t to say that indigenous rulers were simply puppets; often they retained real power. This was certainly true in India, where more than a third of the territory was ruled by Indian princes.
Continuing conflict with the Safavid Empire through much of the period due to not wanting Shi’ a Islam to spread and took Iraq from Safavids. The Ottoman Empire was the most powerful empire military wise, but government corruption prevented necessary advancements to be made and thus gave the empire no political power amongst other regions. Intellectual The Ottoman Empire Used advanced gunpowder and military equipment to advance into new territories. Lacked innovated technology compared to other advancing empires. Remained the same technologically due to a lack of innovation versus other competing empires advancing.