The main difference between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire concerned the official religions they practiced. Whereas the Roman Empire was officially pagan up for most of its existence, the Byzantine Empire was Christian. The Byzantine Empire was the significant remnant of the Roman Empire that survived in southeastern Europe for a thousand years after the official fall of Rome in 476 CE. As noted, a key difference with Rome was that the Byzantine Empire was always Christian rather than pagan. This hardwired into Byzantium a lack of cultural openness to the kind of religious diversity that had helped classical Rome to expand and thrive.
Another important difference was the relative weakness of Byzantium vis-à-vis the Roman Republic's power in its heyday. While powerful in some ways, Byzantium did not function as a hegemonic cultural, political, and military superpower in the same way as did the classical Roman Empire. This had the downside of leaving western Europe vulnerable to attacks, particularly from Viking marauders, that would not have occurred under the Roman Empire, but this also created an upside in which the western Europeans were forced to create their own vibrant and flexible cultural, political, and military institutions and infrastructures in order to survive.
Byzantium remained crucially important, however, because it controlled Constantinople, the gateway to the Mediterranean as well the gateway to overland passages to Asia. This was a source of access to vital trade routes with the East that this remnant of the Roman empire safeguarded for western Europe. Unfortunately, however, unlike Rome in its heyday, Byzantium ultimately lacked military might to keep this territory from Muslim conquest.
“Thou shalt not kill" under the Philonic division used by Hellenistic Jews, Greek Orthodox and Protestants except Lutherans, or the Talmudic division of the third-century Jewish Talmud.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" under the Augustinian division used by Roman Catholics and Lutherans.
Early Greek philosopher Anixamander (ca. 610 – 545 BC) was a monist. That means he believed that ultimately there is just one sort of substance underlying all the different things we see in the physical universe. He put forth the idea that this single underlying substance of all things is something beyond our experience. He called it the ἄπειρον (<em>apeiron</em>), which means "the boundless" or "the limitless." Anaximander was reacting to the views of Thales, a previous thinker from his same town, Miletus, who had suggested that there was one underlying substance to all things, and that <u>water</u> was that essential element. Anaximander objected to Thales' thought, because water is something we all see and experience readily in the perceived world. He believed any underlying or base-level substance, from which water and any other physical stuff originated, had to be something beyond the boundaries of our present experience, or "the boundless."
One evaluation of Anaximander's views came from another Milesian philosopher who followed him: Anaximenes. Anaximenes saw the theory of Anaximander as dodging the question, "What is the main ingredient of all things in the universe." By saying, "It's boundless; it's something we don't know," had he really answered anything? So Anaximenes dismissed the view of Anaximander ... but didn't agree with Thales either. Anaximenes proposed that air was the underlying element of all physical phenomena.
You'll have to decide for yourself what you think of Anaximander's "boundless" theory.
Answer:
1740 until her death in 1780.
Explanation:
Answer:
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Explanation:
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
