Answer:
The Mongols, as the name suggests, were inhabitants of the modern state of Mongolia. An examination of the Mongol history shows that before the advent of Ghengis Khan, the Conqueror, the Mongols were sub-divided into many tribes and clans who reigned in their respective territories, having minimum shared common interests. They were nomadic herdsmen who were expert horsemen and the economy of the time was predominantly pastoral.
Explanation:
When soldiers went away to war their jobs needed to be replaced to keep the economy stable, women were able to take this opportunity and work in factories for munitions and sewing and many other things, this was a big step in the right direction to gender equality, after WW1 people started to change their attitude and realised that women can work and can do just as good as men in some countries they were given the vote and more opportunities opened for women in different industries and they were able to make a living for themselves instead of being reliant on a husband to get money for their whole family
They were looking for wealth.
They made many political allies.
They sought a new route to Asia.
They brought Spain great wealth.
They attracted a great deal of interest in Spain.
Roman society was one that constantly pushed romans to be more and more ambitious, to take more, do more and conquer more. Eventually you start stepping on people's toes who are trying to do the same thing, then you have two powerful people fighting for ultimate power (ceaser v. pompey, sulla v. marius, augustus v. marc anthony, etc.). Then there was the Marian reforms which made soldiers beholdened primarily to their general, not the state, for their rewards (usually land after the campaign was finished), couple that with legions frequently going further and further from Rome in the late republic, most Roman soldiers knew and depended on their general, and barely interacted with the state at all. So these generals gradually gained ferociously loyal armies that were closer to them than Rome in general, so they'd be pretty willing to fight for their general against another general, even when it would weaken the state as a whole. Obviously civil wars cause a huge amount of damage to their nation, both in lives and monetary cost. Plus usually whoever won the civil war would then proceed to kill all prominent citizens who even slightly leaned toward the opposing side. After two or three purges like this, many of the prominent families that made rome into a world power were completely in shambles and the bitter rivalries between them made future wars inevitable.
Answer:
No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.
From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.
Explanation:
What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.
