Answer:
The end of the Peloponnesian War did not bring the promised “…beginning of freedom for all of Greece.”[1] Instead, Sparta provoked a series of wars which rearranged the system of alliances which had helped them win the long war against Athens. A peace conference between Sparta and Thebes in 371 ended badly and the Spartans promptly marched upon Thebes with an army of nine thousand hoplites and one thousand cavalry. Opposing them were six thousand Theban and allied hoplites and one thousand cavalry.[2]
Over generations, the Thebans had been increasing the depth of their phalanx, generally given pride of place on the right wing of coalition armies, from the traditional eight men, to sixteen, then twenty-five and even thirty-five ranks. As the Spartan and Theban armies maneuvered toward the plain of Leuctra, the brilliant Theban general Epaminondas devised a new tactic which would use the deep phalanx to destroy the myth of Spartan superiority.
Over the generations, the citizens of Thebes had developed a reputation as tough, unyielding fighters. Epaminondas had witnessed the power of the deep Theban phalanx at previous battles, and increased the depth of the phalanx to fifty ranks, but only eighty files wide. But Epaminondas’ true innovation was to position the deep Theban column not on the right, where it would have clashed with the Spartan’s weaker allies, but on the left, where it would attack the main phalanx of the Spartan “Peers” led by King Cleombrotus, arranged only twelve ranks deep. In other words, Epaminondas was concentrating his fighting power at the critical point in the evenly-spaced, less concentrated Spartan phalanx. Finally, he arranged the Theban’s allies on his right would advance “in echelon”, each poleis’ phalanx staying slightly to the rear of that to its left, so that the allied right would protect the Theban’s flank, but not initially engage with the enemy (see Leuctra map – ‘Initial Situation’). When asked why he positioned the Theban phalanx opposite the Spartan king, Epaminondas stated he would “crush…the head of the serpent”.[3]
Answer:
It started with the "Black Ships" of 1854, when the USA forcibly opened up Japan for trade and westernization.
Explanation:
On the 1st of March 1854, Commodore Matthew Perry opened up Japan for trade by showing them his armada of steel ships which were superior to anything the Japanese had. At the time, the emperor had no real power, it was the Shogun who ruled the country. However, as the country westernized (becoming more like the western countries), Japan eventually had a government with different parties instead.
Ever since 1854, a feeling of nationalism had been growing since the Japanese were forced out of their old ways.
Also because westernization included colonialism, expansionism, capitalism, and nationalism
Nationalism in Japan in the 19th century (1800's) was not a big problem until the 20th century. It was then that the fear of communism created more nationalistic feelings, as well as that certain movements wanted Japan to rule East Asia. This eventually led to the unintentional invasion of China by the Kwantung army that the government had lost control of, which led to the Sino-Japanese war.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
During the times of NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Agreement between México, Canada, and the United States, many people opposed the treaty and questioned President Bill Clinton about it.
Nader and Buchanan opposed the ratification of NAFTA. This influenced what Clinton said in his speech of September 14, 1993. On that day, President Clinton signed two supplements that were included in the Free Trade Agreement.
President Clinton’s speech addressed the arguments against NAFTA that Nader and Buchanan made in that hehe said it was not true that the trade meant just moving out jobs from the US to México. And he clearly explained that Mexicans with lower income than Germans or Europeans spent more in US products, more than those Europeans and Canadians.
Well some people do that to intertain the watchers as well as teach them that way they can help younger people learn history so that they don't forget important events.
