Although a totalitarian government is generally considered an unproductive and harmful idea, a totalitarian government would be considered more efficient at making decisions than a democratic one, because a democratic government makes decisions based on the people making the decisions through representation of all the different peoples. A totalitarian government, on the other hand, is a political system in which one person holds total control over the state. This would mean that the person would make all the decisions without needing anyone's consent and this would be more efficient, as decisions would be made quicker.
Hopefully this helps please give me a thanks if you got it right :)
It is not sure if Ibn al-Athir was of Arab or Curdish ethnicity, but it is agreed that he was one of the main writers and biographers of the Crusades Era, and one of the Great Historians of the Muslim World.
He was born in the Great Seljuq Empire, modern Turkey, and experienced all the wars and chaos brought by Franks in the Crusades, living in Mosul, Baghdad and Damascus, even travelling with Saladin through for a period.
So, despite for being one of the only authors of its time to show respect and admiration for some of the Frank´s qualities, his main work "The Complete History" (Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh"), that aims at telling his history of the world, has obvious bias in favour of the Muslim cause.
Which can be observed in his accounts of the death of the Christian ruler of Tyre, in a way that could not be written by modern historians:
"In this year, on 13 rabi II, the Frankish Marquis, the ruler of Tyre-- God [email protected] him!-- was killed. He was the greatest devil of all the Franks."
Monroe Doctrine, stating that the United States owns the Americas and anything trying to undermine that power will be prosecuted. This also is the case for the Latin America
If you can give me the options, i can most likely help you!
