I choose Ebenzier Perez’s post which is about Ottoman Empire compare with Safavid Empire. Ottoman Turkish Empire is known as the judging geographically established by Turkey from the Central Asia. Founded by the Ottoman claim, that is, multi-ethnic multi-religious, multi-cultural entity was (Perez). On the other hand, Safavid Empire of Persia (Iran), while in the office, probably 1501. 1736 was a descendant of the Persian Kurdish Sapa in the Member ruling dynasty of rain most of the bark of southwest Asia Safaviyya - injecting a special order of Shi 'a Islam It ruled.
The early Virginia and New England colonies differed politically, socially, and economically due to the situations that the settlers faced. Throughout many of the letters written about some of the experiences of the earlier settlers, one can easily see a major difference in the way of life of the two colonies. Although many of these colonies differed in the way of life, each colony faced some similar things that they each had to overcome. These challenges made a massive difference in the way that each of the colonies started out and directly influenced the future for both colonies. When these challenges are faced, many of the settlers will create the foundations of their political, social, and economic systems.
Religion, specifically the rise and evolution of Abrahamic monotheism (Christianity, rabbinic Judaism, and Islam), is the defining characteristic, of this era. Religions of the Late Antique period were linked with power and entered into a weird dance between politics and faith. Imperial monotheism served as a rallying cry and the building block of empires. Religion was used equally as a tool for salvation, either of the individual or the community, and to justify law. Constantine and the Christians, the Jews of the Himyarite Dynasty in Arabia, the Manicheists who tried to court the Persians, and even the Zoroastrians who were keen to court their Iranian overlords, all sought to solidify their power, control, and government over regions of conquered peoples by using religion as an emulsifier of different tribal/cultural groups and a tool of state control.
As a result, it was King Francis I who assisted Ottomans in expanding to the Habsburgs. On the other hand, Ottomans helped in the election of the French prince. European powers allied with the Ottomans whenever it was profitable for them. Nevertheless, when they started feeling a great threat that the Ottoman expansion would drastically affect them, for the Ottomans had control over many trade routes and many resources, they unified against the empire. In brief, they typically cared about their own
In Ancient India, the people named their flag after Asoka. He did great things for the Mauryan Empire that gave a good ending, but were the means of the ending just? Asoka ruled Ancient India and changed the history of it doing good and bad things for himself but for his empire. Was it being Ruthless or Enlightened? His responsibility for many deaths, his wanting of unfair wars, the unjust laws all clearly imply that Asoka is a Ruthless Conqueror.
Although the book describes all of these sections fairly well, Streusland admits in his introduction that he does not cover social, cultural, and intellectual history as well as he could but focuses much more on political, economic, and military history. He compares the administration of these empires excellently when he first states that the Ottomans’ success was rooted on the stability provided by both the creation of detailed records of Ottoman lands by the central government and the established connections of sipahi cavalrymen to their districts (pp. 99-103). Later Streusland compares the Safavids to the Ottomans by explaining that the Safavids tried to create a replication of the Ottoman system in the form of khass provinces that took money from the Safavids’ tribal groups and placed them in the hands of imperial officials. The Safavids system did not work nearly as well as the Ottomans’ because it suffered from sloppiness and a lack of detailed revenue surveys similar to the Ottoman ones (pp.
The Safavids Empire was held together in the early years by conquering new territory such as Tabriz in 1502 and north western Iran in 1510. Not only that, Safavids Empire also strive to defend from the neighbouring Ottoman Empire after it gained independence from it. Yet in the seventeenth century, the Ottoman threat to the declined of Safavids Empire. There were many factors that made Safavids Empire falls. By the start of the eighteenth century, it had become clear that the empire had weakened considerably.
It was the predominant religion of the world for nearly 1,000 years, and was the official religion of Persia from 600 BC to 650 AD. It is believed that Zoroaster envisioned a god who he called Ahura Mazda. He was born into a time of polytheism dominance. Although Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion, it also has dualistic qualities. Dualistic religions are religions that believe in two confronting figures that are the cause of existence.
Even though the way that the Aztec and Inca governments were different, they were both a monarchy and the king held the most power. Another similarity was how they started. Both the Aztecs and the Incas were based on civilizations before them. As they began to grow, both conquered the neighboring smaller and weaker city-states. With this, both quickly flourished.
The Aztecs, Mayans, and the Inca all have very remarkable governments, That affects us in some ways even today. They also have technologies and, economies that, also affects us today, even though they lived many years ago, they still affect us today. The Inca, Mayans, and the Aztecs all had a hierarchical government, and they all had a godlike emperor that ruled them. This can affect us today because, It shows us what is a hierarchical government and, how it could have affected us if we were a hierarchical government, with a godlike emperor instead of a fair government that we know of today. The Inca, Mayans, and the Aztecs, all demanded taxes from their people, even then that was not enough from the people.