Need Help with History Homework?

['Gunny]

The Early Modern Period, spanning from the 1500s to the 1800s, was a period of great change a globalization within the world.

This sentence looks like it may need work especially: "of great change a globalization within the world" that part doesnt make too much sense.

Up until then, most of the world cultures were separate a rarely interacted with one another, only occasionally interactingby distant slow trade routes.

IMO: dont use interacting twice, thry to find a synonym

The wealth of the Americas and improved shipping practices, along with a general feeling of imperialism greatly changed the course of world history forever.

missing a comma at the end of the appositive

Of the many different economic and social practices that changed, the trade of silver vastly affected socioeconomics in in nearly all parts on civilized world. Much of this wealth came from Spanish mines in the new world, which were also joined by mines in Feudal Japan.

Good, I'd just get rid of "Which were also" making it just "Joined by"

The silver mined in these places created great wealth and trade for those involved. The huge volume of newly mined silver in the Early Modern Period caused great changed in both society and the economies of all the nations involved in the new global trade network.

slightly repetative

Many changes were felt in far reaching places such as China where it destroyed the barter system, and over all, the silver put western powers to the forefront of the new global market.

Good.

Overall pretty good, didnt notice any outstanding flaws, only that in the first sentence and the second to last part being slightly repetative, but who knows, your teacher may prefer the bs we all prop up our essays with

[mp0295]

Quick question here, Google found no results.
"Which Country (in the age of New Imperialism)granted Citizenship to inhabitants of their colonies?"
Choices are
Spain UK Holland (Not minding incorrect name) France or Germany.
I can't find the answer so any help?

['Gunny]

France

[mp0295]

France

Thanks, I just found it in a time-line in the back of textbook

[mp0295]

Alright one last question
Why was the UK able to dominate in India for nearly 200 years?
Only choices that make sense C) Indian Villagers Favored British Rule
D) Differences in language and religion prevented unity among the people of India

I'm leaning towards D, as I think it's including modern Pakistan within India.

['Gunny]

Is this from Guns Germs and Steel? I'd think youd be right going with D
There are still massive language differences between areas like Mysore and areas like Gujrat so D definitely makes sense

[mp0295]

Is this from Guns Germs and Steel? I'd think youd be right going with D
There are still massive language differences between areas like Mysore and areas like Gujrat so D definitely makes sense

Might be, just some mega packet I got over break and I'm going through it now

[Town Watch]

to the Cold War Stalin question from few pages before.

As far as I can tell, the situation was already tensing in late 1944 to early 1945. There was fairly limited actual military co-operation between Russians and the western Allies during WW2 aside from the larger geo-political guidelines, lend-lease invasion planning (for the invasion of France, the second front). Russians always tended to keep their own stuff secret, where as western Allies kind of pooled resources together for the most part, such as military intelligence, and certain technological innovations. Russians were always asking for the good stuff but gave very little in return (well a big eastern front meat grinder). If I recall correctly the actual settlement of Russian-American lend-lease debt was agreed upon only as late as 1972.

You could definitely say that Russians were vigorously defending their spoils in Europe and setting the stage for direct control, because once the Russian influence had reached the level of Red Army occupation, any kind diplomatic effort to make them leave was sort of futile. This was an underlying fact at Yalta conference, so there was a snowball's chance in hell of Britain having its way of a free and independant Poland based on ideological grounds from 1939. So the race for Berlin wasn't just about ending the war and getting Hitler, it was also a land grab.

Soviet Union had been kicked out of the League of Nations due to it's attack on Finland in 1939. USSR remained very isolated even during the inter-war period. Yet the polio-ridden Roosevelt figured Stalin was a man he could work with in the future UN. Wartime propaganda naturally painted to the American public a picture of USSR as a friendly and trustworthy ally to America and the west.

Yet Russians would send their own military attaches with western Allied combat units, and delegations to the west, but would not let any Allied inspectors to go with any of their own units. Russians didn't allow Allied aircraft to fly bombing missions from Russian bases to help the Poles in the Warsaw uprising, a few B-29 bombers that got damaged in the Pacific and emergency landed on Russian territory were interned and copied for their own purposes, despite USA asking for their return.
Borders in Europe immediately after the fighting were closed and it took quite a long time before Allied observers were let inside conquered Berlin for example. Free elections that were to be held in European countries after the war, as agreed at Yalta, didn't quite happen under the Red Army jackboot, since puppet governments had already been set up and political opponents shot or deported to Siberia by NKVD.

Even with all these alarm bells ringing, and the cold war starting, the British (actually just the Rolls Royce factory) donated the best jet engine at the time (Nene) to the Russians, which the UN forces would soon meet again in the Korea.

[ALFAJI]

hi

how are you guys

i'm just wondering did the saljuks rule the yemen and alhijaz or not


Seems a simple yes / no type of a question. Merging in with the homework thread. -- VP

[Didz]

Alright one last question
Why was the UK able to dominate in India for nearly 200 years?
Only choices that make sense C) Indian Villagers Favored British Rule
D) Differences in language and religion prevented unity among the people of India

I'm leaning towards D, as I think it's including modern Pakistan within India.

If those are the only two options then I would have to go with D).

I've never heard of any popular support from the Indian peasantry for the British presence in their country, although in theory they were probably better off as a result. The main method by which the Est India Company managed to survive and prosper, and why British rule eventually took over was that India as a country was divided into numerous competing factions which could be played off against each other and which were willing to negotiate very lucrative deals with the British for their support.

Indeed the biggest problem and delay in the withdrawal of British rule from India was how to do so without triggerring a major bloodbath, and the remnants of that unresolved problem still exist in India today despite the partition which was supposed to avoid it.

BTW: British Involvement in India began in 1613 and continued until 1947 slightly longer than the 200 years quoted in the your question.

The East India Company were trading with India between 1612–1757, and ruled various parts of India from 1757–1857. The British government assumed political soverienty over the Princely States in 1765, and the company finally handed over the rest of its political soveriegnty in India to the British government in 1858, creating the British Raj which then continued until 1947, although Burma which became a British colony in 1824 was given its independence in 1867. The compromise agreed upon to try and prevent a bloodbath upon independence was its partition into India and Pakistan, a least worst, solution which is continuing to cause problems today.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Alright one last question
Why was the UK able to dominate in India for nearly 200 years?
Only choices that make sense C) Indian Villagers Favored British Rule
D) Differences in language and religion prevented unity among the people of India

I'm leaning towards D, as I think it's including modern Pakistan within India.

What were the other options by the way? Out of those two, D is more accurate.

[mattfriend0]

in the roman imperial legion what crest does a camp prefect, senior centurion, chief centurion and a optio have?
and what is the diffrence between a first spear centurion and a chief centurion?

[ALFAJI]

hi all

i just wanted some info about the saljuk history in arabia and specially in oman and the yemen

[EmperorBatman999]

This isn't supposed to be complex and I don't need sources (The teacher has given us sources we have to use) but I need help with an essay. I have to compare 3 Absolutist monarchs to Machiavelli's book, The Prince. Although the teatcher seems to believe The Prince is actually a credible book and not something Machiavelli made up to save his skin from the Medicis (All the while we ignored the dozens of pro-Republican books he wrote that contradict The Prince,) that's another story.

I'm supposed to pick two more leaders, I have already chosen Ivan the Terrible (because of his oprinicki thing he did against the Boyars). What I have left are:
Spain: Phillip II
England: Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I
France: Louis XIV, Cardinal Richelieu
Prussia: Frederick-Wilhelm the Great-Elector, Frederick I, Frederick the Great (Der Alte Fritz would be a pretty bad choice because of his Anti-Machiavelli.)
Austria: Maria-Theresa
Russia: Peter the Great, Catherine the Great (Ivan IV was on the list, used already)

I feel sort of akward asking for help on an internet forum, but I know many of you guys are interested in this period.

[Jaketh]

Peter the great is one my favorite historical characters, if you choose him i may be able to help you out

[EmperorBatman999]

Was he at all "Machiavellian?" (God I hate that word)

We're using what Machiavellian states on Chapter 17, with the whole, "It is better to be feared than loved," and the "End justifies the means,"

And I think I just had a realization. I think I will use Peter, sure his reforms destroyed many Russian traditions, but it was all in the name of modernization.

[RO Citizen]

Louis XIV, egocentric, clear example of absolutist monarch, a lot of information about him. And also Phillip II, and expansionist, inquisitor, conservative king. I think these would suit quite well

[Jaketh]

Was he at all "Machiavellian?" (God I hate that word)

We're using what Machiavellian states on Chapter 17, with the whole, "It is better to be feared than loved," and the "End justifies the means,"

And I think I just had a realization. I think I will use Peter, sure his reforms destroyed many Russian traditions, but it was all in the name of modernization.

he was not a cruel leader by 17th and 18th centuary standards(modern standards perhaps), but he forced his country into modernization regardless of public opinion, he visted multiple western nations (Netherlands,UK) and took back what he learned to Russia. His treatment of the streltskys(cant spell them) can be seen as extreme, he tortured and killed them after he put down their rebellion.

It is better to be feared than loved, and the End justifies the means

i think that suits Peter quite well

[Nanny de Bodemloze]

Absolute does not necessarily equal "cruel"...it may end up that way in reality, but it is not by definition. Also, absolutism as a government form is not synonymous with Machiavellian...in fact, it could be argued that many of the tenants of the Prince are not required in such a government form (arguable), and is more designed in a system where back-room maneuvering is more the norm.

Anyways, Louis XIV is an obvious choice, mainly because of France's standing in the world at that time, and its influence abroad. The actions of the king were watched in almost every court, as a warning or as an example. You'll be able to find alot of source material for Louis.

If you wanted to be a renegade and push your teacher a bit, argue that some of those monarchs were in fact not truly absolutist, and use the Prince to help prove your argument

[Maximinus Thrax]

Henry VII - a visionary monarch of his day.
Richelieu - first servant of the king, yet he was more powerful and feared than his sovereign.

Both of them undertook the mission to raise the overall power and prestige of their countries (and grab a coin of two for themselves in the process...).