Legalism was important as it reassured power into the ruler’s hands, forcing people to follow strict legal codes making them obedient to the ruler. This led Lord Yang to abolish the previous landowning mechanism of aristocracy and replaced it with centralised bureaucracy, whereby members were appointed and dismissed on military merit. The Qin developed a bureaucratic office and rank whereby they could control each and every aspect of people’s lives. The Qin Empire under these reforms was divided into 36 provinces with 2 government officials in charge of each province.
Their policies and methods of colonization were consistent in every region they conquered because of this fact. The British colonies were inconsistent because the they were controlled by both the king and stock companies, which meant that different colonies had different incentives to settle. This hybrid of authority in each region meant that the North American colonies cannot be studied thematically as a whole, rather they must be analyzed as individual cases. These differences were determined by the motivations to settle the colonies and what environment the people lived
Ruling under the Ashikaga Shogunate dynasty, there were separate leaders designed to rule over certain fields of government. The heads of the government includes of course the Emperor, but he served as a face of the government and religious figure, and the Shogun, which was the militaristic dictator, meaning he really had most of the power. Under the Shogun resided the Daimyo, who could be considered warlords or vassals, as they were landowners. On the side for added bureaucracy, there was the Samurai who had a voice towards the Daimyo and were warriors. There was a strict balance between each political role with the Shogun being at the top, and the merchant being at the bottom(farmers were considered a more respectable individual of society).
Selim’s son, Suleyman, made tremendous impact on the Ottoman empire, driving it to it’s peak. Suleyman made an efficient and structured government that reduces bureaucracy. He also made law codes to handle criminal and civil actions, limited taxes, and improved citizens lives. By giving slaves education, it gives them the knowledge and ability to work in the future. He also allowed citizens to have freedom of religion.
Though there were constant conflicts as the empire expanded, the Roman world was free from major conflicts. Augustus powers were mainly based in popularity, financial resources and military control; through this, he was able to establish a governmental system that renewed the Republic. Augustus influence could be felt in every part of the empire; he defended remote areas, secured boundaries, created roads, created the navy and recognized the army. Additionally, he formed a department that attended to the Empire’s business management.
These rulers only stayed in control of their local village if they obeyed. The Guptas as well had a taxation system. In Gupta society many of the local princes would intermarry with local dynasties around them because it spread their influence in a peaceful
The Code of Hammurabi in my opinion seems to have had the most impact on human civilization. The set of laws or rules created by King Hammurabi, a respected ruler and military leader, provided some order for the people of Babylonia. This code consisted of 282 provisions, for the organization of its society included subjects such as family, property, and trade. Without this code, people would be free to do as they please without any discipline and responsibility.
Once the ruler managed to accommodate all the power within his grasp, besides securing and constantly improving the essential within the framework of imperialism military potential, his other task of primary importance for sustaining the imperial integrity was to establish a working system of regional governance, given the fact that the disparate spatial location, resulted in utmost ethnic and religious diversity. Accordingly, this was what also contributed to setting the Ottoman empire apart from its contemporaries, namely, the ubiquitous quasi self-governing administrative system, based on the millet division, which created a clear legal and national identity-based distinction between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Moreover, this
There are always two sides of an argument, in this case for ratifying the constitution there were the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Federalist wanted to ratify the constitution because a powerful government would help many individuals under it, “The constitution would find its supporters among the farmers and workingmen of the nation, of course. Urban artisans and small shopkeepers saw the advantages of a government powerful enough to increase commerce and trade. And backcountry subsistence farmers facing hostile Indians and their Spanish allies on state borders saw the virtue in a government strong enough to repel frontier enemies or negotiate favorable international treaties”(pg 173). Furthermore, the only people that opposed it were the wealthy and educated which were the very few in the nation, they even wanted a new constitution but not the one being
If I had lived during the Classical Era, and could choose which civilization to live in, I would choose Ancient Persia, probably under the reign of Cyrus the Great. While all Classical Civilizations made great achievements and accomplishments, Persia, especially under Cyrus, had certain values and breakthroughs in law and civil rights that helped it stand out among its rivals. Cyrus the Great secured his vast Empire and its many peoples through encouraging cooperation.
With the Articles of Confederation, one strength was that the power was spread out over the country. This lets all states help decide what’s best for the nation, instead of the central government have all the power. A weakness to this is that it might lead to a lack of unity within the United States. Another positive to this type of government is the ability for each state to have different laws. This allows each state to do what’s best for themselves.
How Barbaric Were The Barbarians? Does strategy excuse barbaric behavior? The Mongols were powerful conquerors and warriors of Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. Eight hundred years ago in the 13th century The Mongols gained the name “barbarians” for their harsh battle tactics, laws and punishment. So how barbaric were The Mongols really?
The Mongol empire accomplished the great feat of being the largest empire ever created. To put in into better perspective, it was larger than Alexander the Great and Tamerlane’s empires combined (Document 1)! However, the Mongols are also known for being brutal, killing more than 5 million people (Document 4). Several important laws and neighborly customs observed in today's society were first introduced by the visionary Mongols. It seems effortless to group the Mongols in the simple category of "blood-thirsty barbarians," but their accomplishments cannot go unacknowledged and