Which were the two most likely effects of the decline of the Roman Empire?

NNADVOKAT [17]

Hello friend...

The Zhou dynasty was pretty much non existent after the sacking of the capital by Quanrong in 771 BC since after that Zhou dynasty could no longer exert its power on its vassal states anymore. The vassal states now instead of listening to Zhou king they would listen to a Duke from a major state like Duke Huan of Qi (reign, 685 -643 BC), Duke Wen of Jin (reign, 636–628 BC), King Zhuang of Chu (reign, 613–591 BC), Duke Mu of Qin (reign, 659–621 BC). Some states outright countered the power of Zhou like Duke Zhuang of Zheng (743–701 BC) who even attacked Zhou. In Spring and Autumn period (770–475 BC) those Dukes still borrowed the name of Zhou king for their own advantage, so sometimes they paid tribute to Zhou king to borrow his approval. That was just to be nice, if Zhou king disapproved then the one who lost more was Zhou king himself since he would no longer receive any things from that major state and all other states allied to that major state. From Warring States period (475–221 BC), no one cared about what Zhou king had to say anymore and no one bothered to get his approval anymore. They just freely fought each other, conquered each other and deemed Zhou king as just lord of a minor state that they can take over anytime they wanted. Eventually, the little land of Zhou was conquered by Qin in 2 occasions: 256 BC and 249 BC.

Hence, officially, Zhou ended in 249 BC by the invasions from Qin. However, its power as a proper dynasty would have ended long before in the year of 771 BC.

And why the Zhou was attacked and lost its power in 771 BC ? That was largely due to the poor governing and poor credibility of King You of Zhou (reign 782–771 BC). He was a bad King, just like King Zhou of Shang, only into wines and girls without giving any thought on governing. In order to buy a laughter from the girl he loved, he ignited the big flames in the mountains which were used very exclusively for the cases of a serious emergency. Soldiers from vassal states were supposed to march toward the Zhou capital whenever they saw those flames, believing that the Zhou king was in danger. Thus, when they saw the king and his lover ridiculed them coming for nothing, they thought they were humilated by the king, and the king who played on the fate of his country didn’t deserve his post. Since then, the confidence that vassal states had on the king was all gone. And when Qianrung attacked the Zhou capital, no one came rescue when the flames were lit again. The king was killed in the attack, and Zhou lost its power since then. So I think the fall of Zhou was mainly due to King You of Zhou himself (due to his incompetence and moral depravity) since before him his father King Xuan of Zhou (827- 782) was a capable ruler, who brought back the stability and prosperity of Zhou.

And the further reason might be due to its problematic way of governing when at the foundation, Zhou rulers gave so much autonomy for their vassal states. Thus, when the central government became weakened and at the same time vassal states got stronger, inevitably Zhou central government can no longer hold its vassal states together. Later dynasty, Qin, Han got the lessons from Zhou and chose to build a centralized government with emperor having absolute power over any governing branches and any jurisdiction.

Hope this helps you...

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

An official government order to be enforced as law is called _______________.

bazaltina [42]

Answer:The best i answer i see is a a constitution

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago

What event was a cause leading to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

Arte-miy333 [17]

The answer is A but i did watch the movie a long time ago so

6 0

2 years ago

Which was not a driving force behind imperialism? A Building wealth B Need for resources C Feeling of superiority D Desire to ed

alexira [117]

Answer:D

Explanation:

Happy to help

5 0

3 years ago

Letter from Birmingham Jail Assignment

solniwko [45]

Answer:

Considering the context of its creation, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is remarkably restrained in tone. Throughout his career, many critics of Dr. King argued that he was too deferential to the white authorities that facilitated segregation and other racist policies, but the tone here seems to serve several purposes. First, it conforms to his ultimate purpose of justifying his cause as being in the name of justice. He does not wish to validate his audience’s deep-seeded fears - that the black movement is an extremist set that will engender violence. Therefore, by utilizing restraint, he earns a sympathetic ear to which he then declares his proud embrace of extremism and tension. His difficult arguments end up practically unimpeachable precisely because he has presented them through logos as well as through pathos. However, the restraint also allows him to reinforce one of the letter’s central themes, the interconnectedness of man. There are times when he distinguishes himself and his cause from that of his opponents, particularly in terms of race. However, he for the most part suggests that all men are responsible for all others, an idea that would not be as effective if the tone of the argument was too fiery and confrontational.

Explanation:

Considering it was written in a situation so infused with racial issues, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is often strangely divorced from explicitly racial issues. Obviously, Dr. King cannot avoid the topic, but much of his argument, especially in the letter’s first half, is presented in universalist terms and through abstractions like “justice” and the interrelatedness of man. He argues that the clergymen, and his larger audience, should support his cause not because the victims are black but because it is the right thing to do. However, this passionate but restrained argument ultimately sets the stage for a declaration of what scholar Jonathan Rieder calls “a proclamation of black self-sufficiency” (94). Once he establishes the definitions of justice and morality, Dr. King argues that the black man will succeed with or without the help of white moderates because they operate with the just ideals of both secular America and divine guidance. Further, he implicitly suggests that by continuing to facilitate the oppression of the black man through moderation, his audience is operating in sin and will ultimately be on the losing side.

In Dr. King’s argument, moderation is a reflection of the moderate’s ignorant and unwitting sinfulness. In terms of the former, the white moderate operates under an illusion that patience will be more effective towards ending segregation than tension will be. Through a variety of legally-structured arguments, Dr. King illustrates the fallacy of both these assumptions. He argues that moderation is but a handy disguise for cowards who fear upsetting the status quo more than desire to pursue justice. However, because he stipulates that his audience is ostensibly interested in the virtue of justice, he argues that moderation allows them license to live in a sinfulness of inaction. To view the suffering of others but to remain silent facilitates a world where men are “separate,” which he equates with sinfulness. Through a variety of unambiguous comparisons – the just crusader to Jesus, and the moderates to those who did not protect the Jews of Nazi Germany – Dr. King decries moderation as the largest obstacle towards equal rights in America at the time.

One recurring idea that supports Dr. King’s arguments is that group mentality supports and enables immorality, and that the individual must therefore act for justice even when the group does not share that goal. He makes this point explicitly in the early part of the “Letter.” This argument supports his defense of civil disobedience, allows him to criticize the church for supporting the status quo rather than empowering crusaders for change, and supports the idea that law must reflect morality since it might otherwise be designed solely for the comfort of the majority. Overall, the discussion of group immorality supports his purpose of encouraging individual action in the face of injustice, and criticizing those who do not support such individual action for fear of upsetting the status quo.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers