Compare the early civilizations of India and China with those of Sumer and Egypt.
Compare the early civilizations of India and China with those of Sumer and Egypt. The early civilizations of India and China and those of Sumer and Egypt were amongst the firsts in the world and have many similarities and differences with one another. Centralized development that both China and Egypt shared had many effects; and, it may have factored into the longevity of these states. Sumer and India, unlike their counterparts were more wide spread and decentralized, which could have factored into their longevity as well. The overall geographic position and structural organization of the civilization also plays a large role as to whether or not they fail or succeed. It could also be affected by the fact that they were all civilizations that were primarily agricultural. China however having derived from nomadic hunters continued to fish aside from harvesting crops. Summer and Egypt made many contributions to the civilizations that followed in their wake. Where as the Harappan civilization, was wiped out and left little to no contributions to civilizations that followed. The idea that the centralization of the civilizations in question plays a role in their overall longevity is not entirely ludicrous. For example Egypt, which was primarily centralized around the Nile River valley, lasted for nearly three thousand years. Where as the Harappan civilization, which featured
The Ancient World
Caitlin Skelton HS 1351 9:20 MWF September 16, 2009 The Ancient World "Millions of years ago, a new species, the homo sapien, appeared on earth." From the first few sentences of this first paragraph, we learn of mankind's origins. The first couple of pages outline the evolution of not just man itself, but also mankind's culture, including tools and art. We learn that written language did not appear until the end of the Neolithic, or the "New Stone", Age, and to this day there are some languages that still cannot be translated to this day. We learn what we know through "the study of past cultures through examination and interpretation of surviving material artifacts", or archaeology. The first document used to illustrate the use of archaeology is actually two different pictures representing ancient artifacts and the conclusions we can draw from them. From these ancient artifacts we learn that by roughly 2000 B.C.E homo sapiens had spread throughout the inhabitable portions of the world. The first picture shows the around 5 million year footprints of an adult and child hominid preserved near Laetoli, Tanzania. These and many other artifacts develop the evidence needed to create the second picture, depicting the predicted evolution of the changing human form. The forces of the surrounding environment are believed to have caused the evolution of homo sapiens into modern man.
The Role of the German Princes: Explain how far you agree with the view that Luther's success depended on the princes.
Tilly Riches 7th April 2003 The Role of the German Princes: Explain how far you agree with the view that Luther's success depended on the princes. Luther's ideas aided his success because they appealed to those who were discontented with the church and he adapted his message to suit different audiences. Moreover, his message was helped by the support of authority; princes ultimately had power over their territories they could officially change the religion of their territory therefore they were vital in the success of Luther. Frederick the Wise had great influence in the spread of the reformation. In a letter to Frederick from the in 1518 he requested that Frederick should prevent Luther discrediting the catholic church and that he be handed over for "judgement [by] Rome." In this respect Luther's success depended entirely on the Princes. As elector of Saxony, Frederick was quite within his rights to hand Luther to Rome after he had been excommunicated. The princes as a whole could not agree whether to enforce the Edict of Worms and so allowed each Prince to make their own decision. More vitally is the fact that Luther was being protected by Frederick the Wise which allowed him to continue his work. However, Luther believed that he would always "receive the most protection" from God, not from the princes or any other figure of authority. These early responses from
Was Medicine in Medieval Times Really Worse Than In Ancient Times
Was Medicine in Medieval Times Really Worse Than In Ancient Times Before we can decide whether or not the medicine in medieval times was worse or better than in Ancient times we must see what medicine was like in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greek, Ancient Rome and Medieval times. After this we can see what time had the better medicine and general health. All of Ancient Egypt was the first place to really take a serious logical look at medicine. They were the first true civilization; this meant that they had to look after their population. They started with similar ideas to the basic Ancient tribes; that Gods and Evil Spirits caused disease and that certain herbs, used in the right way can cure diseases but they soon developed these ideas with their own, inspired by things around them like the Nile and irrigation led to ideas about channels in the body being blocked or food rotting in the bowel spreading poisoned gas through the channels. Their leaders, and pharaohs provided no public health but the Egyptians had impeccable hygiene, they washed every day and anointed themselves with oils, they drunk from clean cups and wore clean clothes daily, practiced circumcision and the priests shaved their entire bodies to prevent lice. One problem was that their religion, which requires the body intact preserved so surgery and dissections could not be performed. Physicians used to be
All in all I thought the Umayyads were better rulers than the Abbasids - even though they both were not perfect and they both made mistakes.
The prophet Muhammad started Islam. Muhammad became ill in 632 and died the same year. After Muhammads death Muslim needed a new leader for their country and Islam. It was not clear who should take over from Muhammad to act as caliphs. Overall the main contenders for the caliph could be split in two groups; the Sunni (the Umyyads) which believed that the most able ruler should be leader and the shi'ites (the Abbasids). Both of the family had chances to prove themselves but which family was the better leader? The Umayyads ruled well for a while and managed to extend Arab rule to the borders of modern France and in the west and to India in the east. Although this was a good idea I felt it was not all down the Umayyads as Islam was already well established and would probably have spread anyway because of its sheer influence and strong army. The Umayyads built lots of spectacular mosques e.g. Dome of the Rock and also allowed people to consult advisors about there polices. I felt building lavish buildings had its disadvantages and its advantages but letting people consult them was definitely a good idea as it gave people equal powers and decreased the chances of a mutiny. Building expensive Mosques would have made worshipping a lot more pleasurable but instead could have put money in making more simple mosques than a few simple expensive mosques. Furthermore Muhammad had led a
Why was British decolonisation after 1945 so easy to achieve?
2th November 2003 Why was British decolonisation after 1945 so easy to achieve? When compared to her former colonial rivals, Britain's decolonisation process was remarkably rapid, easy and painless - one need only look at the bloody, protracted wars of independence France faced in Indochina and north Africa to imagine just how acrimonious and complicated it could have been. The main decolonisation process took place in two stages: with Asia asserting her right to independence soon after the end of World War Two, with the bulk of the African colonies following suit between 1960 and 1964. As ever, there are exceptions to the idea that all aspects of decolonisation were smooth and unproblematic - the Mau Mau rebellion and the protracted development of Southern Rhodesia into Zimbabwe are two clear examples of this, but, on the whole, Britain was able to relinquish her empire without considerable bloodshed, mayhem and political opposition. Whilst the speed at which the process moved, and the rushed compromises entered into, may well explain some of the subsequent problems of the newly independent states, such as Sierra Leone and Nigeria, as well as the violence that was a consequence of the partition of the Indian subcontinent, Britain should be commended for managing to avoid the bitter struggles that the French and the Portuguese faced. However, just why decolonisation
CAN EUROPE EVER BE PROPERLY DEFINED?
CAN EUROPE EVER BE PROPERLY DEFINED? This essay will examine the problem of the boarders of contemporary Europe. It will try to answer the question if they at all exist, and if yes, how exactly they go. It will also analyze the history of the terms "Europe" and "European" in order to notice the development of the range of 'the Old Continent'. However, geography will not be the only factor considered as influential on a definition of the "Europe" term. This essay will also cover the issues of a cultural characteristic of the region, including the very important religion problem. It will study the influence of the unification of European states in the EU on the changes in a perception of the Europe entirely as well as if political differences may be the factor which decides if a state is European or not. According to John McCormick (2005, p.29), the term "European" was first probably used by Greeks in the fifth century BC to describe 'barbarians' from the north, whom they fight with. On the maps, which Greeks drew up, there were three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. However, the border between Europe and Asia went along the River Don and the Sea of Azov (Delanty cited in McCormic, 2005, p.29). Later on, at the turn of the fifth and fourth century BC on the map appeared a new powerful state-The Roman Empire. Despite the fact its range encompassed not only terrains of the
Reasons Why the Conquistadors were so Successful.
Xiang Jerry He Mrs. Bell World History Pre IB World Count 551 8 March 2002 Reasons Why the Conquistadors were so Successful Ever since the dawn of human history, it was unheard-of that an empire of millions can be conquered by troops of mere hundreds of men. Indeed, Cortez and Pizarron's conquests have changed the way people looked at wars. It is no longer only a comparison of numbers but also counting in crucial advantages involving aspects of psychological, technological and biological warfare. In both the conquest of the Aztecs and the Incans, the native Americans could have easily fended off the conquistadors if it wasn't for their internal political problems, the conquistadors' advanced weapons and finally their diseases. Even before the arrival of the conquistadors, the Empires were politically divided. In the Incan Empire a civil war broke out between the two brothers Atahualpa and Huascar, which kept the empire somewhat divided even after the defeat of Huascar. This severely limited the manpower in the Incan military. In the Aztec empire many of its neighboring city-states held grudges against them and ended up helping the Spaniards getting through places and adapt to the local environment. When the conquistadors meets the leader of each Empire, they all took advantage of their absolute-monarch form of government and took the leaders hostage. Without their
How much credence should we give to Procopius' portrayal of the empress Theodora?
How much credence should we give to Procopius' portrayal of the empress Theodora? If we omit the chroniclers, there are hardly any sources for Theodora that are written without parti pris. The most important, Procopius of Caesarea, who is our only source for the lurid details of Theodora's early life, presented a different Theodora in each of his three works, the History of the Wars of Justinian in seven books to which an eighth was added later, the Anekdota or Secret History, to give it its popular name, an essay purportedly written immediately after the first seven books of the Wars were published and containing data which were too defamatory to circulate openly1, and the De Aedificiis or Buildings which is a panegyric on Justinian's building program throughout the empire. All these works were written or at least completed after Theodora's death in 5482. In the Wars, Procopius credits the regime's success at suppressing the 'Nika' revolt of 532 to Theodora's courage and imagines a splendid scene which may have some basis in fact, where she declares that she, at least, will not flee the capital city3. The Anekdota is full of scurrilous details about Theodora's early life as an actress and courtesan, and her intrigues at court. In the De Aedificiis, however, the picture is uniformly flattering. The emperor and empress shared a common piety4, he claims, and her loveliness was
What role did superstitions and omens play in Roman religious thought and practices? Why was this so?
Rosemari Baker 11K GCSE EXAMINATION 2002 What role did superstitions and omens play in Roman religious thought and practices? Why was this so? From a modern viewpoint, the Romans seemed to have been extremely superstitious. Today's major religions all discourage superstitions so they are not widely practised. Also, our sciences and technological advances mean that there is little room left for superstitions. But the Romans lived in an era previous to ours. Their world was full of unexplained phenomena, such as thunderstorms for example. The Romans believed that superstitions were a perfectly natural part in the relationship between the gods and man. The belief that objects and living beings possessed spiritual properties was widespread in primitive societies and the Romans were no exception. 'Numina' was the Latin name given to spirits that lived in trees, rivers, mountains, animals and even furniture. Stones in particular were believed to contain these spirits, particularly if they were boundary stones which divided one man's property from anothers- it is believed that the word the Romans used for such a boundary was 'terminus', and there actually was a Roman God called Terminus. The goddess Fortuna, who could be persuaded to favour or spite a person by certain actions, controlled good and bad luck in ancient Rome. To bring 'bona
