Yet, modern times never focus on what problems the Europeans caused in their process to discover new land. They killed people, used many people as slaves, and spreaded many diseases all in search of new land and wealth. They destroyed the peace that maintained before they arrived to the land they explored. They tore apart many civilizations in order to build their own on top of it. The Age of Exploration was a time of corruption.
This obviously scared their enemy. The Mongols sometimes slaughter, destroy then burn entire cities. This, in turn, caused other cities nervousness and would surrender rather than fight the Mongols in fear that they might end up just like them. Because the Mongols were good at all aspects of warfare they were successful in conquering
The big storm came such force that McCullough describes the event with such detail. The whole city had been shut down and nearly 10,000 people had gone up to the new burying grounds.In the end, 2,209 lost their lives, many of those bodies were never found. All the ceremonies had been held at Grandview Cemetery.All the monuments that were built for the people, were arranged very precisely in rows. There were 777 white marble headstones.Not all 777 were full of bodies, they had been some extra stones to make the pattern even throughout the plot.However, many of the bodies were unknown, there was a granite monument dedicated to those people.There were many speeches dedicated to those who died. One of the longest and best was by the Governor, Robert Pattison.Many people gave donations to the town as well as many people came to help with the recovery and to rescue, they only realized that it would take months even years to clear everything.
His empire was nothing compared to these massive long lasting empires. Alexander the Great did not deserve his tittle as great because he gained power by fear, killed innocent people, and his empire did not stay together long. Alexander the Great started conquering land at the age of 20, and in the process killed thousands of innocent people, used a fear tactic to gain his power, and built a massive empire that did not last very long. Some may see him as great, but if you look a little closer at the details Alexander did more harm then good trying to unite everybody. In conclusion, these three factors are proof that Alexander was not as excellent as historians try to prove him to
This makes me upset about how messed up the system was with only one person on top deciding everything without anyone helping him. This grievance I believe would have been thought of by using the social contract. Grievance number 22 had said, “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts,burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” This means that King George had ordered his military to take over the coasts and surrounding waters, so the people can’t trade, he had more military destroy the town"s people lived in if they didn’t agree with him, all these
In Document D, stated is “Fired with an overwhelming desire for seizing the property of others, these swift moving and ungovernable people make their destructive way amid the pillage and slaughter of those who live around them.” This piece of evidence shows how savage Rome’s enemies were. The Huns were ruthless and unforgiving, so when Rome invited some Germanic tribes into their territory they showed other Germanic tribes that they were weak and easy to overcome. A different kind of
Alexander tortured many of his victims and then he killed them. Another reason why he was a villain because he killed members of his family so that he would become the ultimate successor to the throne. This should never be how a king becomes the ruler of his kingdom, ever. Even though I believe that Alexander the Great is a villain, others may think he was a hero. They may think that because he had conquered so many other nations.
Some may argue otherwise, that Asoka was a ruthless bloodthirsty conqueror. Well, would a ruthless, bloodthirsty conqueror stop taking over land because people were dying? Would a ruthless, bloodthirsty conqueror stop taking land because he wanted to be fair? Would a ruthless, bloodthirsty conqueror stop conquering just for the good of the people? The answer to every single one of these questions is no, and that is the reason Asoka is an enlightened ruler: He did the exact opposite of what a ruthless conqueror would do.
In the beginning of The Bhagavad-Gita, Arjuna’s worldview is that nothing is bigger than family to him; he strongly believes that destroying your own family is a sin. This directs his decision making and actions by, setting down his bows and arrows in the middle of the battle field. Being a warrior, Arjuna looks at his opponents, and sees his kinsmen, and is no longer ready for war. Arjuna tells Krishna, “I lament the great sin/ we commit when our greed/ for kingship and pleasures/ drives us to kill our kinsmen.” (1.45). Arjuna is portraying that men are greedy and would do anything to achieve kingship, even if that means killing their own family.
Henry is a credible speaker because of this he gets some to agree with him on going to war with Britain, and some still disagree becasue some say they are not ready, they are weak. To begin with, Patrick henry uses pathos to appeal to the audience's emotions, and feelings of going to war with Britain. For example, he says "i consider it nothing less than a question of freedom and slavery." He connects with the emotions and thoughts of being a slave. The audience doesn't agree with his decision, even though he does appeal to the
Mongol essay The leader of the mongols was a cruel leader by the name of Genghis Khan. People lived in fear of the mongols, this was because one of Khan’s strategies was to use fear and cruelty as a weapon, there wasn 't a single person who wasn 't scared of invasion from his powerful army. The Mongolians of the Asian Steppe had a negative impact on the world during their rule of the Asian continent from 1206 to 1368 by influencing violence, population drop, and that they had too many people to control in a large area. The mongols conquered most of the world that was known. Genghis Khan, the cruel leader of the mongols had a goal to take over china.
"This affected the Empire because court officials such as judges were killed and the government was just destroyed in general." (Wikipedia.com) Many people were upset because they had no home after the rebellion and many of the cities were completely wiped. Meaning there was little to no resources for people to actually use and survive with them. The economy was affect drastically during this time making it hard to survive like if it wasn’t already hard to
The relationship between the Spanish and the Aztecs was a correspondence that steadily declined as the Spanish conquered and destroyed the Aztec Civilization. The relationship was one that was bound to fail because of the naive nature and seclusion of the Aztecs along with the greed and barbaric attitude of the Spaniards. The Spanish ravaged through the new world and along with them the brought destruction and disease; with no remorse for the deaths they caused. The Aztecs, naive and uneducated, were overly trusting of their supposed “pale-faced gods.” The combination of these factors is what lead to a destructive association between these two incompatible groups. When God created the earth he began with the separation of light and darkness;
He tore through many cities destroying monuments that were important to the various cultures because he had absolutely no respect for other people’s beliefs. In conclusion, it is evident that Alexander is anything but “the Great” because he is selfish, he is ruthless, and he has no respect for other cultures. Alexander killed over a million people, and many into slavery. He destroyed countless buildings of cultural significance, and he did great damage to the various cultures he conquered. Some might say Alexander was great because he expanded Greece or because he was influential, but evidence shows him to be anything but
“Monks were killed, thrown into the sea or taken as slaves along with many treasures of the church, and the library itself razed” (Goodrich). One can only imagine another reason the Vikings didn’t have a problem raiding monasteries is because of the massive differences in their religions, the monks were Christians like most of Europe at that time and the Vikings were Pagans, given it was something that was different from their own religion, something unknown to them, I can only assume is how they justified it, if they did at all. After numerous raids on the monasteries the monks struck with fear, sought to dehumanize the Vikings. The monks saw the Vikings as barbarians assaulting Christianity with no respect for religion, but it went beyond that, it was a collision of cultures with different religions and traditions. Knowing that information the Vikings were probably angered and it could have only given them more intuition to steal from the monasteries.