| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "KIEVAN EMPIRE CHRISTIANITY": |
|
|
|
The Kievan Empire and Christianity, 2006.
An examination of the cultural and political consequences of the acceptance of Eastern Christianity by the Kievan Empire.
1,244 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper states that the conversion of the Rus - the medieval political entity centered on the city of Kiev - is dated from 988, when its pagan ruler, Vladimir, and his subjects were baptized under the auspices of the Byzantine emperor, Basil II. The writer explains that the acceptance of Eastern Christianity may have been determined as much by geography as theology. The paper explains that, over time, the architecture, decorative arts and music, in the area of the Kievan Empire, began to reflect Byzantine style. The writer shows that one of the most significant consequences of the conversion of the Kievan Empire was the division between church and state. The paper explains that the Byzantine view of church-state relations suited the rulers of Kiev and later the Russian Tsars, who saw themselves as Caesars, who were all-powerful in their realms. It explains that autocracy has been a factor in the development of Russian leadership until the time of the Soviet Union, which itself had all-powerful leaders. In conclusion, the writer posits that had the Kievan Empire not converted to Eastern Christianity, the society and culture in Russia today would be far different from what would have developed in the absence of that conversion a millennium ago.
From the Paper
"The acceptance of Eastern Christianity by the Kievan Empire may have been determined as much by geography as theology. Kiev, strategically situated on the Dnieper River, in the tenth century dominated the established trade route between the Baltic Sea in the north and the Black Sea in the south. This so-called "route from the Varyagi (Varangians or Vikings) to the Greeks," permitted trade from northern Europe to the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern Mediterranean, and various parts of Asia. The prosperity and influence of Vladimir's Kiev depended on the use and control of this route, which involved many rivers, lakes, and the portage of simple rafts and open boats between bodies of water (Barraclough 114-15). "Byzantium was not only Kiev's principal partner in this north-south trade, the two also at times fought wars against each other and at other times aided each other against the threat of third powers. In fact, the most direct cause of the conversion of Vladimir may have been an agreement between Vladimir and Emperor Basil that called for Vladimir to provide 6,000 troops to help Basil put down the rebellion of Phocas, one of Basil's generals, who had declared himself Emperor, taken over most of Asia Minor, and besieged Byzantium (Shchapov 58-59). What Vladimir got out of the agreement was marriage to an Imperial Princes, Anna, the Emperor's sister. "
| |
|
The Roman Empire vs The Chinese Empire, 2001.
This paper examines the similarities and differences between the Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire.
1,005 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a detailed comparison of the Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire. The author shows how the imperial dynasties of Han and Qin along with the classical empire of Rome offered their people a combination of protection against external enemies and an infrastructure that was far more functional than individual cities or regions would have been able to provide for themselves. This paper describes the reign of all three of these dynasties and their effect on their people as well as world history.
From the Paper
"While it is difficult to make any general statement that can cover the political and cultural complexities of the Roman Empire along with the Han and Qin dynasties in China because they were sufficiently different from each other as well as being possessed of substantial internal diversity. And yet, even given the range of institutions and ideals that the three cultures exemplified, there are some commonalties that strike the observer from the vantage point of the 21st century. The primary one of these is that neither the Chinese empire nor the Roman one could have extended its reach as far as it did in geographic terms, had as great a control over its subjects' personal lives as it did, nor ruled for such a long period of time had not the ruling house combined a high degree of bureaucratic efficiency with a depiction of the imperial family that was at least semi-divine."
| |
|
The Byzantine Empire: The First Christian Empire, 1986.
Overview of the rise & decline of the Byzantine Empire, the first Christian Empire. Discusses rulership of Constantine & Justinian and describes church architecture & symbolic purposes.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The first Christian Empire in the world was that of the Byzantine Empire founded by Constantine in 330 A.D. The Byzantine Empire started with the division of the Roman empire into East and West factions, with the eastern provinces becoming the Byzantine Empire. When the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he moved the governing center from Rome to the city of Byzantium, made Christianity the state religion, and created a state that had a profound effect on the social life and outlook of the people. The first moves toward splitting up the Roman Empire had been made by Constantine's uncle, the Emperor Diocletian, who thought that the problems with the empire were related to having too much territory to the east and north out of direct control (Wenzel, 1965: pp. 11-13). The separation did not take place immediately but over a generation or so and would last for more (...)"
| |
|
The Mongolian Empire, 2004.
This paper analyzes the Mongolian Empire as the most successful empire in history, using the Conrad-Demarest model of empire.
1,085 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Mongolian empire, which began about
1200 A.D., was selected as the best empire because its influential ideas and developments, horsemanship, militancy, nomadic lifestyle, leadership system, its fall and impact, make up all of the components needed to fully understand and appreciate the history of a great empire. The author points out that, in Khan?s military system, which was derived from the philosophy of Alexander the Great, Khan?s army integrated the commanders, bureaucrats, artisans, and professionals of the conquered peoples in order to produce new tastes in art, food, decoration, and clothing. The paper relates that the tremendous length of the Mongols? trade routes was directly related to their huge territorial domination and led, not only to the unification of the East and the West geographically, but also to cultural unification
From the Paper
"Under the rule of Genghis Khan, the Mongols started to dominate the world. He claimed power by saying that he was the ?universal ruler.? He basically used the Mandate of Heaven system of China, implying that he attained his power from God and he would be the ruler of the whole universe. This claim of Khan simply gives a clue on how he set up his ideology of ruling his state, eventually his empire. It seems like Khan?s role model was Alexander the Great and his Greek Empire. Though the Greeks did not have a militaristic social structure, they had the idea of focusing on the expansion of the territory followed by more trades and getting wealthier. This was the system Khan set up as well. He was perhaps one of the greatest military innovators in human history, and his army consisted of perhaps the best-trained horsemen in all of human history. Khan?s armies were incredibly mobile and could cover immense distances with numbing speed. Thus, it is clear that Khan established one of the major rules in rising of an empire: The tremendous military strength."
| |
|
The End of the Western Roman Empire, 2002.
An overview of the downfall of the Western Roman Empire through a review of Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is written about the end of the Western Roman Empire. The classic work in the field is provided by Edward Gibbon in "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Gibbon's essential argument was one that attributed the "fall" (the use of this term today being itself a source of controversy) to "Christianity, which he claimed had undermined the ancient warrior traditions of the Romans and, through the influence of monasticism and asceticism, turned them away from earthly things".
| |
|
Introduction to the Ottoman Empire, 2005.
A historical overview of one of the most fascinating periods in the history of civilization, the era of the Ottoman empire.
3,301 words (approx. 13.2 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 94.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a thorough overview of the history of the Ottoman Empire and the impact it had on the world. The paper describes the early structure of the empire's political and military might, the Ottoman empire's gradual demise and its final collapse.
The Early Structure of Political and Military Power
in the Ottoman Empire
Turkish Military: The First Place the Turks Occupied in Europe was
Gallipoli
The Growth and Expansion of Russia from the 18th Century Onwards
Egypt (because of cotton) Begins a Move Away
from the Ottoman Empire
Demands Pressed Upon the Ottoman State - and Russian Expansion -
Led to a Further Weakening of Ottoman
The Janissary Corps
The Ottoman Failure to Reform the Inefficient System of
Government they were Using
The Origin and Decline of the Ottoman Empire
From the Paper
"And it is important to note that Turkey's domination over Africa's northern areas was not entirely well defined, and the Ottoman Empire did not really have permanent, clear-cut borders; rather, the empire was more of a military administration over a vast region of diverse cultures and geography."
| |
|
The Roman Empire, 2006.
A review of the Roman empire and a discussion as to why Rome, which began as a city-state, was so much more successful than Athens in creating and maintaining an empire.
1,034 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the structure of the Roman empire during the time period known as the principate. The paper reviews how the Romans governed their provinces, what methods were used to secure and protect them, the taxation policies, ways in which Roman ideology and values were impressed upon subjugated peoples, and how the Romans exploited the natural and human resources of their conquests.
Outline:
Introduction
The Principate
Rome over Athens?
From the Paper
"The Romans imposed their ideology and value system upon conquered peoples through a long process of assimilation that generally took many years, if not several generations. The assimilation naturally begins with the conquest of a nation or territory by the Legions. In the fighting, many native warriors are killed, particularly any leaders or nobility that opposed the Romans. After the conquest, Rome appointed governors to rule the territory that were amicable to Roman rule, and often were native leaders that welcomed Roman influence in their homelands (usually for personal gain). Roman soldiers would settle in the new province, furthering the assimilation process by interbreeding with the native peoples. Roman temples were built to replace domestic religious sites. Young warriors would join the Roman army, which would serve to indoctrinate them into Roman culture and ways, including the use of Latin as a language- one of the rewards of military service was full Roman citizenship. Over the years, these factors would slowly change the native cultures until almost no vestiges of the original culture remained, and the people were living by Roman laws and customs. This assimilation process came to be known as "Romanization." [3]"
| |
|
Jean Berenger?s "A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1273-1700", 2002.
This paper reviews Jean Berenger?s "A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1273-1700", which explains the respective weights and roles in shaping the power structure of empire.
845 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 1 source, APA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Berenger?s "A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1273-1700" that explicitly explains the colorful tapestry that is woven of the individual nations of the monarchy. The paper points out that this two-volume is a precise survey of Habsburg history from the late Baroque period to the monarchy's demise in World War I. The author believes that the information contained within the narrative has a strong overtone of politics which includes economic developments, social change and major cultural movements.
From the Paper
"Only a handful of historians have been courageous enough to attempt to centralize the diverse historical accounts of the Habsburg Empire and the people who were part of this dynasty. The cultures of those involved and the development of the fortunes is dynamic. The works of Berenger displays this information in a systematic and knowledge manner that is understandable for the reader to digest. Five centuries of Habsburg rule is dramatically scribed and holds the interest so that the reader continues to follow the historical controversy of this time. One can follow the rulers of Spain and the Netherlands and understand how the head of the Holy Roman Empire was also a de facto family possession."
| |
|
The Impact of the British Empire upon Britain, 1983.
This paper discusses the British Empire from social, political and cultural perspectives, describes the scope in terms of land and power of the Empire and examines some of the negative aspects of Imperialism.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 7 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The British Empire was the greatest political entity known to human history. At its height it embraced much of Africa, all of the Indian subcontinent, the continent of Australia and much of the immense archipelago that links it to Southeast Asia, much of North America, not to mention numerous small but important territories scattered around the world. In addition, of course, it embraced the British Isles themselves. It ruled about a third of the world's people and perhaps half its wealth. For five generations ... "
| |
|
Arther Ferrill's "The Fall of the Roman Empire", 2004.
Critical review of Ferrill's book about the decline of the Roman Empire.
868 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a positive review of Arther Ferrill's study on the Roman Empire, "The Fall of the Roman Empire". The paper includes a discussion of some of the book's weaknesses, but focuses on the book's ability to deliver an informative, historical account of the decline of the Roman Empire. The paper also applies the lessons learned from the book to the current political situation in the United States and asserts that these lessons should be heeded in light of the comparisons that can be drawn between the political, economic, and military power of the United States and that of the Roman Empire during its time.
From the Paper
"The Fall of the Roman Empire by Arther Ferrill (1986) provides well written and interesting reading for the non-historian. While Ferrill breaks down many areas of the Roman Empire and it?s decline, there are other areas where the author?s description of some important details remains sketchy and leaves the reader wanting more information. Ferrill breezes over some very important explanations concerning why the Eastern Empire survived despite the Eastern army suffering the two major defeats of Adrianople and Julian's failed Persian campaign. Ferrill also does not support the argument that the Fall of Rome was the result of a successful conquest of barbarism and religion. He instead maintains that uncomplicated military failures contributed to Rome's decline. The case he presents supports that these were created by political blunders, and that enough of the blunders created the misfortune that resulted in the decline of the Roman public spirit."
| |
|
The Role of the British Empire in the Two World Wars, 2005.
An analysis of the role of the White Dominions in the defence and security of the British Empire from 1900-1968.
3,286 words (approx. 13.1 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 94.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the Empire's role in imperial defence and security declined from the beginning of the twentieth century to 1968 largely due to the maturing status of Britain's White Dominions, which increasingly held diverging views on defence and security from the mother country. It looks at how in Britain's greatest hours of need during the two world wars the Empire contributed heavily in terms of manpower, resources and hamlets for training. It also shows how paradoxically, the Empire, which Britain battled to preserve in the two world wars was lost in the post-war environment, as the Dominions' increased autonomy coupled with Britain's inability to match its resources to imperial demands weakened the Empire beyond sustainability.
From the Paper
"With the fall of Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and France, Britain's position became extremely perilous, and for the first time since 1806 it lacked allies on the Continent. For over a year between France's surrender and Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941 Britain and the Empire was forced to single handedly face the Axis powers. Initially, the British Empire had been relatively safe because of Britain's supremacy in the seas, but in the summer of 1940 the security of the British Isles became paramount, as aerial attacks and threats of a cross-Channel invasion increased."
| |
|
The Decline of the British Empire, 2008.
An analysis of the factors contributing to the economic decline of the British Empire after 1870.
2,525 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides an economic analysis of particular historical factors that contributed to the relative decline of the British Empire since around 1870. It begins by briefly discussing the basis for the British Empire's phenomenal growth. The paper then focuses its explanation for the Empire's fall on the collapse of free market values in the empire and their replacement with collectivist and protectionist strategies that encouraged rival nations to assert their own global dominance and threaten Britain's position.
From the Paper
"In the end, the Empire's rigid attempts to hold onto the whole of itself at the expense of free market values would be the undoing of the Empire. The tighter the control the Empire exerted to make up for lagging industry and slow innovation, the more threats from outside the Empire intensified as well as unrest within the Empire and nationalist uprisings. These factors ultimately had the effect of undermining the strength of the Empire. After two World Wars, the British Empire was thoroughly unable to maintain its position of global dominance and quietly let go of its remaining colonial holdings. In 1947, with the liberation of India, the British Empire was effectively no more (Windschuttle par. 3). The most powerful empire in the world--even if it was one of the most short-lived--was no more, suffering a relative decline in importance and authority began quietly as early as the 1870s."
| |
|
Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 2004.
Analyzes events that led to the decline of the Ottoman Empire in 1922.
2,236 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The legacy of the Ottoman Empire can be found in a modern secular Turkish nation today, which is poised to join the European Union as an equal partner in the international community. The causes for the downfall of the Ottoman Empire seem fairly concrete to some who believe that the economy was in a horrid state and that most people were near starvation, while others think that the internal economy was doing just fine, and it was only the external economic trade that was failing. This paper provides an overview of the events leading up to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, followed by an analysis of the events surrounding the internal and external economic conditions of the empire as it was declining through its ultimate collapse. A summary of the research is provided in the conclusion.
From the Paper
"According to McCarthy, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the reasons for the failing Ottoman economy mostly stemmed from internal problems such as a lack of capital, inadequate skilled manpower, and insufficient capital goods; however, the Ottomans could not be held accountable for all of the effects of the international invisible hand at work: "Some of the Ottoman's problems were simply the workings of the world market." For example, increasingly modern methods of transport enabled European countries with advanced production capabilities to send products more quickly and cheaply to underdeveloped regions where people were desperate for goods they were unable to produce themselves. In this environment, the European nations were in a position to demand more favourable terms from the Ottomans, and the Europeans exacted a series of trade capitulations that forced the Ottomans to accept disadvantageous terms of trade."
| |
|
The Endurance of the Spanish Empire, 2006.
This well-researched paper details the various reasons the Spanish empire endured from the 16th century to the 19th century.
3,506 words (approx. 14.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 98.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer of this paper asserts that in order to understand why the Spanish empire survived as long as it did, it's imperative to examine why other empires endured or failed to endure. This paper describes the Spanish empire as an institution that was not an original creation but merely part of the remarkable military and ideological successes that began with the Spanish Reconquista that took back the Iberian peninsula from the Moslems. This paper explores several issues that impacted the endurance of the Spanish empire including: The allocation of native labor, the initial organization of lands, crusading fervor, the hacienda system and the Catholic church. This well-researched paper contains a plethora of historical facts and information pertaining to this particular subject.
From the Paper
"Crusading fervor was hardly enough to account for the long-term endurance of the Spanish Empire. That is attributable to less-glamorous factors involving the organization and implementation of economic and political power. Empires are made up of many successively smaller units that contribute their strength and wealth to make the empire strong and rich. Each of those units in the Spanish Empire was subject to administrative policies and institutions--many with roots deep in Spanish history, some highly modified to meet the peculiar needs of entirely novel imperial realities."
| |
|
Fall of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, 2006.
A discussion comparing the declines of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty.
800 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 28.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty with respect to their leaders, demographics, and economies. The author discusses reasons for the decline of both empires. He further argues that the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty eventually fell as a result of dire leaders and rulers. Additionally, the author contends that economic problems were a factor in the decline of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty as well.
From the Paper
"The Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty were two of the largest and most powerful empires of ancient Europe and Asia, respectively. Yet the Han Dynasty lasted for about 400 years while the Roman Empire ruled for about 900 years. Both empires shared many similar and different qualities in their rise to power. However, both empires fell after time. The decline of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty both varied with respect to its leaders and rulers, demography, and the economy. Although both empires were massive and powerful during the time, they both declined like all past empires."
|
|
|
