He argues that the effect of Suez spread widely, particularly in Africa, and in the three years following the crisis Britain's pre-Suez policy of gradually introducing self-government to the indigenous population leading on to independence, 'was replaced by one of rapid scuttle.'2 Lapping continues saying that Suez was, 'an imperial cataclysm; the principle cause of the suddenness with which decolonisation broke across Africa in 1960.'3 He also argues that until 1956, despite some decolonisation in the Far East and parts of North and West Africa, the imperial powers had shown no inclination to leave their remaining African colonies.
In the De Aedificiis, however, the picture is uniformly flattering. The emperor and empress shared a common piety4, he claims, and her loveliness was such that it was impossible to convey it in words or portray it by a statue5 (Even in the Anekdota, he concedes that she was attractive, though short and rather sallow in complexion6). Procopius' viewpoint differs in these three works, understandably in the De Aedificiis, which was an encomium and intended to please the emperor, but they do not actually contradict each other.
Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
Do they use key words from the title or question?
Do they answer the question directly?
Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
"In conclusion the defeat of the communists in Greece's Civil War, was due to a wide variety of issues and events. Although the communists in Greece proved to be somewhat unorganized and ineffective, factors such as EAM, and especially the impact of outside forces such as Yugoslavia, Britain and the United States all played a very significant role in the outcome of the Civil War. The Greek Civil War proved to be extremely complex and diverse making it almost impossible to generalize and argue that the communists had only themselves to blame for loosing the Greek Civil War.
"In conclusion, it is clear that Britain benefited greatly from her empire in the eighteenth century. There were many setbacks, the greatest and most obvious being the loss of the American colonies, but none of these proved fatal. Indeed, the loss of American occurred only after Anglophone domination in the colonies had been established, a fact that was to work to British advantage for centuries to follow, and indeed still does. The empire in the eighteenth century was most significant in that it not only delivered immediate benefits in the form of markets for British good and sources of new raw materials, but also that it formed the basis for even greater advances in the next century, when the empire would expand to a size never before or since witnessed in the course of modern history.
The Roman age was a period of vast progress in public health. They began with similar ideas and technology to the Ancient Greeks, and developed systems of clean water, sanitation, and hygiene that are still in use today. As a result of this progress, the general health of the Roman people improved, but more so for the army and the rich. The theories and methods of those such as Galen dominated medical practice for over 1500 years."
Marked by a teacher
This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read
the full teachers notes when you download the document.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay
reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document
reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.