Most of early history, these was no seperation of church and state, so they were one and the same.
This applies to both the English civil war ( if you can call any war civil) and the Dutch revolt. Both were to end Catholic domination of the Protasant subjects.
All wars are both religious and political. But end up anti-religious as they violate the very tenets of any religion they expound so it is only being about power.
Protasants revolted against the Catholics for freedom but then in-fighting over which Protasant religion is good.
The politics of any war are power and greed. Someone wants what someone else has and demands the right to take it and deny others taking it from them.
Many claim they are trying to protect the ' true' religion or claim for religious freedom and then show they are no better then the heritics they decry and deny others the same freedoms they want,
When all is said and done - all is just for power.
War has never settled any differences. It just pospones the reversal of power as will always happen. The French Revolution almost did by beheading the royals but as many escaped and Napolian brought new ones in. Nothing much changed.
The American revolution - which was the 1st non-religious war started the change for wars to not just be about religion.
<span>
Stagflation, price control. Keynesian policies were failing. The oil
crisis showed the stupidity of price controls. The stagflation showed
that an increase in the money supply does not increase wealth.
In the 70s we still had Vietnam, we had Nixon, there was Watergate,
Gerald Ford, Paul Volcker raising interest rates to 20% in the Federal
Reserve, government bailing out Chrysler. </span>
Answer:
He raised taxes, which irritated the citizens and led to uprisings. He decreased the size of the army, reducing Rome's defenses. He built a second capital in the East, which led to isolating the Empire.
*credit: HistoryGuy*
Explanation:
hope this helps...
Answer:
As the city of London filled to capacity in 1600, Richard Hakluyt suggested to Queen Elizabeth that settlements in the New World might relieve the city of some of its poorer folks.
Compared with other European nations in 1600, England was relatively poor.
As new agricultural techniques made fewer farmers necessary, the poor multiplied in the streets of cities such as London and Bristol. Much to the dismay of the wealthier classes, the impoverished were an increasingly burdensome presence and problem.
Explanation:
