While both Greek and Romans were pretty ethnocentric by modern standards, the Romans assimilated far more people into their institutional lives.
Many non-Greeks adopted Gteek lifestyles, language and habits after the age of Alexander, but the cross-pollination was more frequently cultural than political. Cleopatra might have dressed like an Egyptian queen and patronized the Egyptian gods, but she wouldn't have had Egyptian generals or Egyptian judges. The Greeks tended to settle into the cultures they occupied like the British in India: remaining separate from and believing themselves superior to the people around them, even while encouraging the 'natives' to adopt their culture habits.
Romans did a much more thorough job assimilating the peoples they conquered. Non-Romans could and did become citizens, even from very early times. This started with neighboring groups like the Latins, but eventually extend to the rest of Italy and later to the whole empire. Eventually there would be "Roman" emperors of Syrian, British, Spanish, Gallic, Balkan, and North African descent Farther down the social scale the mixing was much more complete (enough to irritate many Roman traditionalists). This wasn’t just a practical accommodation, either — when emperor Claudius allowed Gauls into the Roman Senate he pointed out that by his time the Romans had been assimilating former enemies since the days of Aeneas.
Nuremberg Laws
These were anti-Semitic racial laws that deprived German Jews of their citizenship. As a result, the Jews were harassed and subjected to acts of violence. The laws had a devastating effect on the social and economic conditions of the Jewish community
The three<span> major </span>monotheistic religions<span> of the world. They share a common heritage and are related in many ways. However, there are also major </span>differences between<span> the </span>religions<span>. The major </span>similarity between <span>these </span>three religions<span> is that they are all </span>monotheistic<span>.</span>
Answer:
Using twenty years of data on executive orders, Joshua Kennedy finds ... These concerns are understandable given our broad expectations as citizens for ... the truth of the matter is that the executive branch is comprised of many ... to gain greater control through the appointments process may paradoxically ...
Explanation:
<h3><u>Absolutist forms of rule affected social and political development from 1648-1815:</u></h3>
- The era from 1648 to 1815 was delineated by two important climatic events in European history — "the Peace of Westphalia" in 1648 and the "Congress of Vienna" in 1814-1815.
- The political developments were complemented by the rapid regional and global growth of European economic systems.
- This Age of Absolutism discuss about a period of 'European history' during 1648-1814 in which 'monarchs successfully hoarded all the wealth and power' of the state to themselves and claimed themselves as the superior.
- Absolutism culminated during 1648-1814 as a type of political system that gave away all the power in the hands of hereditary monarchs.
- An important anomaly was the constitutionalism development in Dutch and the England Republic, where legislatures contained the 'rulers' power'.
- By the end of the era, "Enlightenment" thought had "spawned an interest" in democratic government.
