The development of such major Sudanic kingdoms and empires as Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Hausa states, and Kanem-Bornu along the southern fringes of the Sahara had a number of important consequences for the history of western Africa as a whole
The precise term Sacrum Romanum Imperium dates only from 1254, though the term Holy Empire reaches back to 1157, and the term Roman Empire was used from 1034 to denote the lands under Conrad II’s rule. The term “Roman emperor” is older, dating from Otto II (died 983). This title, however, was not used by Otto II’s predecessors, from Charlemagne (or Charles I) to Otto I, who simply employed the phrase imperator augustus (“august emperor”) without any territorial adjunct. The first title that Charlemagne is known to have used, immediately after his coronation in 800, is “Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.” This clumsy formula, however, was soon discarded.
Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, 10th century; in the treasury of Hofburg palace, Vienna. Erich Lessing/Magnum These questions about terms reveal some of the problems involved in the nature and early history of the empire. It can be regarded as a political institution, or approached from the point of view of political theory, or treated in the context of the history of Christendom as the secular counterpart of a world religion. The history of the empire is also not to be confused or identified with the history of its constituent kingdoms, Germany and Italy, though clearly they are interrelated. The constituent territories retained their identity; the emperors, in addition to the imperial crown, also wore the crowns of their kingdoms. Finally, whereas none of the earlier emperors from Otto I had assumed the imperial title until actually crowned by the pope in Rome, after Charles V none was emperor in this sense, though all laid claim to the imperial dignity as if they had been duly crowned as well as elected. Despite these anomalies and others, the empire, at least in the Middle Ages, was by common assent, along with the papacy, the most important institution of western Europe.
Theologians, lawyers, popes, ecclesiastics, rulers, rebels like Arnold of Brescia and Cola di Rienzo, literary figures like Dante and Petrarch, and the practical men, members of the high nobility, on whom the emperors relied for support, all saw the empire in a different light and had their own ideas of its origin, function, and justification. Among these heterogeneous and often incompatible views, three may be said to predominate: (1) the papal theory, according to which the empire was the secular arm of the church, set up by the papacy for its own purposes and therefore answerable to the pope and, in the last resort, to be disposed of by him; (2) the imperial, or Frankish, theory, which placed greater emphasis on conquest and hegemony as the source of the emperor’s power and authority and according to which he was responsible directly to God; and (3) the popular, or Roman, theory (the “people” at this stage being synonymous with the nobility and in this instance with the Roman nobility), according to which the empire, following the tradition of Roman law, was a delegation of powers by the Roman people. Of the three theories the last was the least important; it was evidently directed against the pope, whose constitutive role it implicitly denied, but it was also a specifically Italian reaction against the predominance in practice of Frankish and German elements.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now It is also important to distinguish between the universalist and localist conceptions of the empire, which have been the source of considerable controversy among historians. According to the former, the empire was a universal monarchy, a “commonwealth of the whole world, whose sublime unity transcended every minor distinction”; and the emperor “was entitled to the obedience of Christendom.” According to the latter, the emperor had no ambition for universal dominion; his policy was limited in the same way as that of every other ruler, and when he made more far-reaching claims his object was normally to ward off the attacks either of the pope or of the Byzantine emperor. According to this view, also, the origin of the empire is to be explained by specific local circumstances rather than by far-flung theories.
Answer: The boys from a young age were trained to fight so they were mostly soldiers. The women in Sparta had a higher level of rights than in Athens or any of the other city states in that time.
In the <em>Declaration of Independence</em>, Thomas Jefferson expressed various grievances of the colonists against the British, such as:
The king refused to assent to laws that were wholesome and necessary for the public good.
The king had forbidden colonial governors to enact laws or implement laws without his assent (which, as the prior point noted, he was in no hurry to give).
The king forced people to give up their rights to legislative assembly or forced legislative bodies to meet in difficult places that imposed hardships on them.
The king dissolved legislative assemblies and then refused for a long time to have other assemblies elected.
The king obstructed justice in the colonies and made judges dependent on his will alone for their salaries and their tenure in office.
The king kept standing armies in place in the colonies in peacetime, without the consent of the colonial legislatures.
The king imposed taxes without the colonists' consent.
There were more items listed by Jefferson, but you get the idea. He was justifying revolution by proving tyranny was standard operating procedure by the British monarchy.
