Another way Caesar and napoleon can be compared was their political mind. Caesar as well as Napoleon were both able to achieve vast political power as a result of being very politically savvy. Both realized that in order to take complete control of the government, you must have the support of the army which they had as a result of being generals. With the support of the army both future dictators enacted coup de tats. In the case of Caesar, after being fired from his position of governor of Gaul(modern day France), took the army which had been loyal to him, entered the Roman Senate building and took control of the Roman Republic. Almost the exact same thing happened with Napoleon. After both leaders took power they immediately eliminated their countries democratic governments, and replaced them empires with they controlled as emperors. …show more content…
In Caesars case he realized that Rome needed an economic overhaul because the nobles owned all the land, and the slaves did all the work so the people in the middle class and lower class had no jobs. Caesar made laws that would redistribute land from the nobles and give it to poor and middle class. In addition he also created the Gregorian month system and the names that he gave for the months are still the months we use today. In the case of Napoleon, he formed a the French banking system that is still used in 2015, rebuilt Paris after the French Revolution, created a fair justice system, and created stability and order in France after the revolution. They were both similar in the way they ruled, because they did many good things that helped their nations grow, and be politically stable. In addition they enacted brilliant coup de tats to usurp control. However they were different because Caesar's work was built around cropping up the middle class, while Napoleon's work was centred around not redistributing the economy but building it
Gunpowder empire are very similar and complex in the same way. They grew empires and provided empires with deadly weapons at the same time. I personally think that gunpowder helped grow empires because they were able to defeat many empires at a faster rate since battles didn't last all day. The Russians expanded their territory because they had gunpowder. Portugal was able to defend their ships better because they had cannons.
Napoleon was more of an imperial dictator than a democratic reformer because he conquered a lot of territory,
It is clear that these two vast and powerful civilizations had highly developed political structures which helped the widespread prosperity of the societies. First, it is evident that both societies were not completely alike. Politically they varied. When Rome became an Empire it was forging an entire new method
They both excelled and revolutionized the social, political, and religious aspects of their empires. The Romans revolutionized the democratic system of government and ended up giving the lower class of people all the power in the society. Christianity became a big role in their system and the split between the Plebeians and the Patricians helped keep the system balanced to a point. In Han China the class system helped the empire run very smooth. The balance between the rulers and the lower class workers and the artisans helped make sure every task was accomplished and was done efficiently.
However, not only did they have differences but they had similarities to. A couple of their similarities was that there both were the capital of Rome, they worshiped Roman Gods, they exported wine and marble, and they both spoke Latin (Admin). Now most of these similarities that they share are more of your common daily life procedures. However, these two periods happen to be very common and different at the very same time, it is just a matter on whether or not which angle you are looking at. Whether it from government point of view, a law point of you, or just you daily religious
Additionally, while the American revolution resulted in the establishment of a democratic republic, the French revolution ultimately led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte and the re-establishment of autocratic rule. In conclusion, the American and French revolutions were two pivotal events in world history that helped to usher in a new era of political organization and individual rights. While there were many similarities between the two revolutions, including economic hardship and the use of revolutionary rhetoric, there were also important differences in terms of methods of protest and ultimate outcomes. Nonetheless, both revolutions left an indelible mark on the world, and continue to serve as inspirations for those fighting against oppression
First, there were limitations on freedom. Within the Second Empire, was practically a dictatorship. Napoleon lll ruled like a dictator. He had the power to appoint his cabinet, the upper house of the legislature, and many officials. Even though other people were allowed to vote, because of universal manhood suffrage, officials, who were appointed by Napoleon, arranged the elections in a way that had the supporters of Napoleon win an election.
Most of napoleon's political and administrative policies went against the goals of the revolution, but the new bureaucracy promoted
What kind of leader was Augustus? Round 1 Document Based on this document, what kind of leader was Augustus? Evidence from document to support these reasons Is this document reliable? Why or why not?
Julius Caesar was very popular with the plebeians and lower classes for supporting them. He did this in ways like creating jobs for them. He made many other reforms such as enforcing laws against crime, and including supporters from Italy and other regions in the senate (Cornine et al. 248-249). He made a new Roman calendar, which was helpful to everyday life.
Another accomplishment Julius did was he brought down Roman debt, and this satisfies many borrowers and lenders. Julius Caesar also improved the Roman calendar to the Julian calendar, and he granted citizenship to people living outside of Rome. Secondly, Julius Caesar helps the poor and middle class a lot, which these classes favor him. Julius
Julius Caesar was the Dictator of Rome in 42 BC who accomplished many things. Many people believed that he was a hero, but Julius Caesar was a very ambitious dictator and was more of a villain than a hero. Julius Caesar was a villain because he didn’t think first before doing something, he forced the Senate to name him dictator for life and he also was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. To begin with, Julius Caesar was a was a glory hound and put his needs before the republic. Caesar used his power as dictator more towards his advantage instead of helping the people in Rome.
He created, alliances (notable one is the papacy for the conquest of Naples, he was was created Duke and loads more of
He was always courageous and persistent in battle, which made many individuals admire him. Similarly, Julius Caesar was a leader of Ancient Rome. In the beginning of Caesar’s reign, he
‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Henry V’ are plays whose themes are reflective of their respective contextual climates. They were both written in the time of renaissance theatre under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, who was an avid supporter of Shakespeare’s work. The plays were written consecutively, and they both present historical figures that were greatly idolised in the period in which they were composed. Both history plays convey how, on political scenery, deceit is omnipresent. In Julius Caesar, it is used to bring down the monarchial rule and to ultimately implant a new democratic government, while in Henry V, the King makes use of multiple facets of his personality among which is deceitful behavior in order to conquer France and win over