The correct answer is Mercantilist theory/Mercantilism. Mercantilism was a theory that held that the prosperity of a nation is dependent on its supply of capital which at the time was measured in bullion (gold and silver). It was the dominant school in economic thought from the 16th to 18th century until Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations published in 1776.
Last edited by War&Politics; April 30, 2009 at 05:00 PM.
"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.
(War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.)
Oh and also, I've been studying The American Revolution, and I keep hearing about 'Taxation without Representation'. And I was just wondering, what exactly does that mean? I don't want to sound un-intelligent, I just don't understand what it means.
Definition: "Love" is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tril-light scope. - HK-47
Knowledge is a deadly friend, if no one sets the rules. The fate of all mankind I see, is in the hands of fools - King Crimson's Epitaph.
תחי מדינת ישראל
The British constitution held that no citizen could be taxed without representation in Parliament. Since the colonists were not represented in Parliament (the British claimed that they were through "virtual representation"), they believed that this constitutional principle was being violated.
"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.
(War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.)
I'm writing an essay, and I the several history books I have only touch on the Crusades, and when they do, it is primarily the political actions of the crusades, and not the cultural implication and effects in European thought/action that resulted from the Crusades.
I was wondering if anybody had any websites or books on this subject that deal with this topic. I can probably find a book you mention in the Australian National Archive/Library, but a website would be good.
I mean, I don't need your opinions unfortunately, as it would be a bad source to list in an essay.
The question is "What did the Europeans achieve by their contacts with the peoples of the Holy Land?"
nos ignoremus quid sit matura senectus, scire aevi meritum, non numerare decet
Currently preparing for a few structured essay questions on the Treaty Of Versailles(1919) that concluded and established the terms after the Great War. Although I'm not certain of the actual wording, it should go something like this:
"How fair was the Treaty of Versailles in restrospective perception by either Germany or the big 3 Allied Powers".
Now, I do know and have contemplated the various factors (harshness, innocence of germany not causing the war etc for both the pro and contra sides of the essay but I'm unsure of either side to take. Should I list 3 factors for both pro and contra and state a neutral stance or should I bias myself to either spectrum?
Last edited by Gerald The Herald; May 13, 2009 at 08:50 AM.
No change in the balance of political parties can alter the general determination that no class should be excluded from contributing to and sharing responsibility for the state. - Gustav Stresemann
Were the Checks and Balances and the Constitution two different articles? or is the C&B a section of the Constitution?
Definition: "Love" is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tril-light scope. - HK-47
I need help with this one:
In the Battle of El Alamien (WWII North Africa Campaign) what advantages did British General Montgomery have over German General Rommel? (list 5)
1. The British were on the Defense, always an advantage right?
2. The British controlled The Suez Canal for the entire campaign, so the troops were well supplied and equiped.
3. Im Stumped and I can't find anything else that would have help them. I want to say the might and discipline of the British Army but that would be me just being arrogant. After all Rommel was really good General.
4. Dunno
5. Dunno
Superior numbers + short supply lines+ more tanks.
"The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise." Tacitus on Health & Safety
"Abuse, if you slight it, will gradually die away; but if you show yourself irritated, you will be thought to have deserved it." Tacitus on trolling
The Checks and Balances aren't part of the US question or any other constitution per se. Rather think of it as an underlying philosophy that went into the design of the US and many other constitutions. There is no article labelled "Checks" and another article labelled "Balances" in the US constitution. Rather each article describes the powers of a different part of the government from the legislature, executive, the judiciary and the states etc. The philosophy of checks and balances is that different branches of the government (executive, legislature and judiciary) has its own separate powers and duties, should keep each other in check, and have their powers limited to prevent abuse of power.
"Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.
(War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.)
L'union fait la force. Eendracht maakt macht.
Their name liveth for evermore
The British had all access to vital supply like you stated above, whilst Rommel at that time was left to dry with the rest of his Afrika Korps. Supply had to be transported through the Mediterranean which was under British air superiority. Every possible way even using the huge Messerchmitt transport plane proved that going through the Med without any escort is a suicide. The conclusion is, Rommel was cut off there. No supply, no panzer replacement, no ammunition, no food, no etc..
Another is the superiority of the British artillery. Montgomery massed hundred of guns along the frontline before the battle.
CA you have done a great job so far, keep up the good work!!
Why there is no German-Axis FPS game?
Thank You for the rep+ given!:wink:
Crusader tanks have better armor than Panzer tanks, I believe. Though Panzer range is much longer, and they're faster, which is what made them so valuable in the desert.
Am I right on this?
well, that's true when comparing the early panzers, however by the time of the second battle of El Alamein, the British were also supplied with Shermans and Germans had long-barreled PZ4 tanks. Crusaders wrent very reliable either. But the key points that "ensured" allied victory at Alamein were:
The superiour British supply situation [lack of tank replacements and spare parts, Axis had to bring their tanks and supplies over the Med by ships, which were getting sunk by Royal Navy once they had intercepted the signal traffic]
Double the number of Axis tanks [you gotta remember that out of the around 500 tanks, a lot of them were poor quality Italian tanks, 88s did serve Afrika Korps well though]
Rommel also fell ill, and went to Austria to recuperate and relax, so he didn't technically lead the German forces in the battle, minor detail but still.
Monty had also un-flankable position with the Qattara depression at the south being impassable for tanks, and the sea at north
Monty had also stacked huge number or artillery shells, British artillery fired about a million shells at the rather puny German defensive positions that were dug out of the sand. Result can be guessed...
However the Germans had laid extensive minefields in front of their defences, and they posed some trouble for the British, however, they eventually defused enought mines to carve a path through for tanks, albeit with losses.
Desert Airforce was also pretty strong by now I think.
Last edited by Town Watch; May 27, 2009 at 11:22 PM.
"What do I feel when I kill my enemy?"
-Recoil-
That depends; Crusader tanks were clearly inferior than Panzer III. And when Rommel got Panzer III J~M version (with long 50mm ATG) Crusader tanks were not problem anymore.
The biggest weakness of Crusader, however, was the lack of radio build-in; it was part of "saving funds" movement...
I think Uk's superiority in planes was of 8 to 1, too. As usual, Monty waited to have such a great material superiority that he cannot lose...
For the guy working on the Crusades... if you are any kind of serious student, do not use websites. Please. You could use
FLORI, Jean. La guerre sainte : formation de l’idée de croisade dans l’Occident chrétien, Paris, Aubier, 2001, 406 pages.
BRYER, Alan. Cultural relations between east and West in the twelfth century, dans D Baker, Relations between East and West in the Middle-Ages, Edinburg, 1973, p.77-94.
Any book you could find about Baudri de Bourgueil and the renewal of the study of Ovid during the12th.
use the Runciman book, too. It's the Bible in English on the Crusades.
There is a book, in french, Histoire des Croisades, by Rousset. It treats the Crusades as a whole, from spanish reconquista to 1444.
There is also a book, Europe et Islam. I don't remember the author, though.
Help it will help, even if it's mostly french-written references