Need Help with History Homework?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

thanks again! some more things: +rep for answers on this!

• What other reasons were there for Alexanders success of maintaining his empire during his lifetime?

The main reason was his liberal policies towards the native population. A few examples are that he allowed the Carians to be ruled by their Queen, gave certain tax freedoms to city-states that accepted him peacefully in Asia Minor, allowed a certain level of autonomy for the Egyptians and let Besus remain satrap of Babylonia. He was careful when choosing the generals who would act as satraps and the gentle approach of most of them (for example Peucestas in Persia) made them quite famous and loved by the indigenous people. This also allowed the Macedonians to recruit thousands of foreign troops who even after Alexander's death remained completely loyal to the crown. Without those troops, the Macedonians would have been unable to hold the Empire together. Alexander and his generals tried not to offend the locals, payed respect to their gods and allowed them to retain a certain extend of autonomy. They tried to backed up their morality behind the invasion by proclaiming that they wished to free the people from the Persian tyrannical rule and rightfully avenge the invasion of Greece by the Persians. Added to that, there were also very finely measured and planned outbursts of violence, for example against Persepolis, in order to make it clear to the natives that Alexander is no fool and that he will destroy those who stand in his way. The destruction of Persepolis also served as the peak of the 'vengeance policy' meaning that it was the answer to the burning of Athens.

As for what Constantius said, I completely disagree, Alexander's personality was essential for the creation of the Empire but no so much for its survival. Most of his ideas and policies had already been adopted by his generals and successors like Ptolemy, Seleucus and Eumenes of Cardia. People usually argue that the Alexandrian Empire was torn to pieces immediately after Alexander's death and they ignore certain facts. In just 11 years, Alexander had carved a tremendous dominion which encompassed hundreds of tribes, dozens of different religions and so on. Yet, the dynastic crisis following Alexander's death was avoided by the Partition of Babylon which reorganized the Empire and allowed it not only to keep itself together, by avoiding rebellions of subjects whose numbers far exceeded those of the small Macedonian army but also to expand in Cyrenaica and Cappadocia. In the process, the Macedonians also managed to crush the Greeks in the Lamian War, the Greek mercenaries who revolted in Bactria and an invasion of Scythians in Thrace. The division of the Empire can be attributed to certain political figures, such as Antipater and mostly, Antiochus who sparked distrust and hate between the Diadochi. Up until a certain point, the Alexandrian Empire was holding up well and it seemed as Alexander IV would eventually become the rightful King.

[The Norseman]

Ok thanks Ill +rep all of you! So Alexander wasnt famous for the "build dont destroy" ideology? hmm maybe that was Caesar then, or the Romans generally.

[mamik_yev_konak]

What other reasons were there for Alexanders success of maintaining his empire during his lifetime?

Was it really a success in empire maintenance during his lifetime if following his death that "successfully maintained" empire broke into pieces? Did Alexander really spend any significant amount of time actually "maintaining" his empire, or was he spending most of his life creating it? Some questions to consider. Max Weber's writings on charismatic leaders can be applied to form one of many possible arguments on why Alexander's leadership "worked" (while it did).

[The Norseman]

Thanks for the replies! Btw, I have a question about the Shogun era. Did the Dayimos wear Katanas or did they use another special sword?

[Gandalfus]

To my (not very extensive) knowledge, they used a katana, but I will have a look

[Soviet]

Could someone give a rough overview of the hostilities between Ireland and the UK, and what big events happened during the time of Michael Collins/Valera and then the Troubles? Also, what were the effects of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement? I'm really just looking for somewhere to start for my paper.

[Inkie]

Hi there. Could anyone point me in the direction of some good literature on the French Royalists during the Revolution and its subsequent wars? I would like to find out more about their cause and actual strength. If anyone has worked on the subject before, links to/location of primary source material - both French and English - would be welcome.

Cheers.

[Didz]

Hi there. Could anyone point me in the direction of some good literature on the French Royalists during the Revolution and its subsequent wars? I would like to find out more about their cause and actual strength. If anyone has worked on the subject before, links to/location of primary source material - both French and English - would be welcome.

I don't have any specific literature on the French Royalist movement during the first revolution, but its not that hard to track down. A google search on 'French Royalist' brings up a decent list of references, perhaps the hardest part being to isolate those groups which relate to the first republic from those that arose afterwards.

The Chouannerie led byCharles Armand Tuffin, marquis de la Rouerie, and, Jean Chouan. seem to be one group from the first revolution, and there is a list of books related to their uprising.

There were also Royalist forces raised by exiled members of the Bourbon family and French nobility in most of the coalition armies especially Britain which was host to the exiled French Royal family. Those are harder to track down as they tend to be buried in the order of battle for specific campaigns by that country, rather than recorded in national army lists.

There was the Army of Conde raised by Louis Joseph de Bourbon, the Prince of Conde in 1791. and most of the armies fighting against the French during the first repulic would have included units of emigre troops led by officers with royalist sympathies.

There was an uprising in Vendee in which was suppressed in 1795, despite British attempts to provide it with support,

There were also a number of notable turncoats, bretrayals and conspirators such as Jean-Charles Pichegru who changed sides to secure more power for themselves. He planned a the Coup of 18 Fructidor along with fourteen others, but was discovered and deported eventually finding his way to London. He later returned to Paris in August 1803 with Georges Cadoudal to head a Royalist uprising against the First Consul, Napoleon Bonaparte but was arrest and died in prison.

Other factions took advantage of the events to gain independence from France such as Corsica whose leader leader Pasquale Paoli placed the island under British protection in return for assistance in eliminating the French garrison resulting in the Anglo-Corsican Kingdom.

[Prince of Essling]

Hi there. Could anyone point me in the direction of some good literature on the French Royalists during the Revolution and its subsequent wars? I would like to find out more about their cause and actual strength. If anyone has worked on the subject before, links to/location of primary source material - both French and English - would be welcome.

Cheers.

Have a look at:

"Armée des émigrés" at http://fr.academic.ru/dic.nsf/frwiki/133049

Book on Quiberon landing entitled "The debris of Quiberon , memories of the disaster of 1795 followed by the list of victims" by Eugene La Gournerie in French at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k204262x.image.f132.pagination

[Verrix Toutatis]

What did athletes and ancient states (poleis) get out of the Olympic Games?
Look at the advantages (and the costs) to individuals and to city-states for their participation at the Olympics. Do the types of rewards tell us anything specific about Greek culture, as opposed to wider, human needs and interests?

Any articles that I could look at would be most appreciated, thanks.

[Constantius]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJF...K200801006.htm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...ympics&f=false
here this should help, a scholar I heard recently described it as the 'Achilles syndrome' the need for personnel glory, out weighed anything, to loose was utter shame. There was no silver and bronze just- ignomy

[Verrix Toutatis]

The second link, how am I meant to download the PDF?

[Constantius]

umm sorry , try these
http://www.la84foundation.org/Sports...2/jsh3002f.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...actors&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...47698785671257

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...47698785671257

[Verrix Toutatis]

First one, for Classics:

Punishment as Spectacle: Why Roman law use the venue of the games in addition to crucifixion as a form of capital punishment?

Also, not sure if I should be posting this here, or somewhere in the Science sub-forum.

What are the biological origins of the first Australians? Does the cranial variation expressed in the fossil remains from Pleistocene and early Holocene Sahul represent multiple migrations into the continent or can the variation be explained through other mechanisms?

[Constantius]

Well this one is not going to be answered with a simple link, I'll be back in a moment I will need to consult my books
EDIT/PS: on the subject of links, were any of the ones I provided for you beneficial?

[Constantius]

As for the first question, I think it simply stems from the desire of Greeks and Romans to express civic authority, rewards for the good punish the bad, encourage virtue, but then graphic displays of punishment to deter deviation. Crucifixtion was reserved for slaves and deserters, so again it is a public display a clear warning, and yet another example of how the Romans sought to display their dominance. So at the same time as warning the potential criminals, it displayed to the Roman citizenry the dominance of Roman society. Often the executions at the games were a parable of myths and the criminals death sought to teach the audience importance of virtue, whilst punishing those that had shamed Roman society and by the death of the criminal Rome's honour was saved

[Roman4life]

i would like to know your opinions on somthing

Do you think Alexander knew of Philips asassination beforehand?,and if you think he did why do you think he ignored it?

i simply cant decide bymyself because if alexander was friends with philips bodyguards i doubt they could hide a plan from him but there actions (killing the assailant on the scene) suggest they knew about it

[Constantius]

Simple fact Alexander had a lot to gain,ie. the throne. It is not hard to imagine Alexander being behind the murder..it is how Makedonian politics works

[thelastjacobite]

To what extent did the French Revolutionary Wars represent a change in the conduct of European warfare?
Got to write 2000 words on this so any help would be more than welcome

[MarcoRossolini]

I'm not an expert by any means but I'll offer my thoughts.
I'll assume that you're referring to only the revolutionary wars and not Napoleon.
I think the French revolutionary wars brought more nationalism to warfare, the French troops were sent out with the words: "la patrie en danger." (the country is in danger).
I would say also the French troops brought new things to warfare, when facing them, their enemies often commented on how they would be a lot looser in formations because of their lack of drill and training and often when in woods or broken terrain they'd hide behind and bushes whilst firing, the lack of drill for their troops also meant that they adopted a different formation for attacking, namely the column, which they used a great deal and was able to soak up a lot of fire and keep moving.
I'd imagine also that the French fought quite an aggressive war, judging by how they extended their frontiers, also of course they were the perfect place for really, really ambitious men because there weren't as many things stopping you from taking command, you just needed to be good and ambitious, Napoleon is the perfect example.
Hope this helps a bit.
Marco.