1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
kramer
3 years ago
11

Compare the monarchies of Peter the Great and Charles II

History
1 answer:
Klio2033 [76]3 years ago
6 0
Peter the great tried to Westernize Russia, and therefore industrialize it. In this way he was a progressive monarch, trying to change things for the better. Yet Charles II wanted complete control over his people and so tried to get rid of the parliament which resulted in the English Civil War. Yet Peter the Great tried to liberalize Russia, giving people rights to revitalize their economy and country. 
You might be interested in
Which diagram best describes the effect of Klondike gold rush
zaharov [31]
answer: to better help your understanding or help you with this question i need a picture
6 0
3 years ago
Why did Congress pass numerous pieces of legislation during the first Hundred Days of Franklin Roosevelt’s administration?
soldier1979 [14.2K]
It is D because I’m smart and you should trust me!!
5 0
2 years ago
Did Moses have a good or bad influence to the world. Overall was he a positive or negative person in history?
Montano1993 [528]
Positive! He was one of God's most faithful servants
8 0
3 years ago
Why did the British act alone during king Leopolds rule
Julli [10]

Answer:

Mark as brainliest

Explanation:

symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.

Issue Section:

 Articles

INTRODUCTION

The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5

If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9

5 0
3 years ago
If rome had no master plan for expansion, why did it expand ?
Leno4ka [110]

Answer:

Romans expanded as they came with conflicts with its surrounding neighbours.

Explanation:

The Romans did not set out any plan to build an empire. Instead, they expanded as it came into conflict with neighbouring city-states, kingdoms, and empires. By engaging in fights, they include these new territories and populations as their own. The more powerful and prosperous the Romans became, they further expand their empire. The Romans were not content with their small state in Italy. Romans were able to gain victories because of the discipline and training of soldiers who developed as the best fighters in its period. Rome territorial conquest in Italy led them to declare Latin as an official language.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What did the peoples charter of 1838 petition for?
    15·2 answers
  • Martin Luther believed that
    8·1 answer
  • What was a difference between British and French approaches to colonialism?
    8·2 answers
  • Tribes communicated by using the same spoken language.<br><br> True<br> False
    13·1 answer
  • A cup warming up after hot tea is poured into it is an example of _____. A. radiation B. convection C. conduction
    5·1 answer
  • How did the Han Chinese attempt to assimilate conquered people? (I will give brainliest)
    5·2 answers
  • How do historians group Indian peoples?
    10·1 answer
  • Who was the Union general who captured Fort Henry? a David Farragut b George B. McClellan c Robert E. Lee d Ulysses S. Grant
    12·1 answer
  • True or False: The convoy system enabled Allied success in WWII?
    7·2 answers
  • While soviets rejoiced in the success of the sputnik program, americans
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!