Louis XIV ruled his country as an absolute monarch for 72 years. This meant that no one could challenge him and his word was law.
Under his rule, the king’s command was law. Critics who challenged the king were punished. To control the nobles, Louis built a large palace at Versailles. Leading nobles were expected to spend most of the year at the royal court, under the watchful eye of the king.
Louis also interfered in the economic and religious lives of his subjects. He demanded that Protestants convert to Catholicism or leave France. Finally, Louis involved his subjects in a series of wars to expand France’s frontiers and bring glory to his rule.
Hobbes believed that kings were justified in assuming absolute power because only they could maintain order in a society.
Hobbes concludes by saying that peace is preferable to war under the Commonwealth of the Absolute Monarch. However, Hobbes contends that since men are inherently violent, this must also be true of the monarch as it is of every other individual human being. If so, the monarch and his subjects would be at war.
For more questions like Absolutism click the link below:
brainly.com/question/18663065
#SPJ4
In 1989, a group of students led a protest in Tiananman Square, in Central China. After the Cultural Revolution has ended with the death Mao Zedong in 1979, there was economic and civil unrest. Because of this movement spearheaded by Mao, China faced poverty that they had never seen before. Shortly before his death Dong Xioaping was made the de facto leader of China in 1978. Reforms were set up by him and this led to a huge downturn. Deaths of prime political figures and a disembodied education system were to follow in only 11 years time. In 1989, a group of brave students took arms in the forms of words and signs to protest to demand scholarships for higher education, these "riots" were seen by the un-democratic and corrupt government of China as a threat, and military action was taken. It resulted in a huge causality rate, that of a massacre.
Know Tank Man? Research him, I'll think you'll recognize him.
There are a couple of differences:
1) The Americas (especially Latin America), will not have Roman Catholic influences in the area, and will not have it as their state religion.
2) The land will keep most of it's natural wealth, though it may not be used in great quantities as before.
3) Population will not take a hit, and will continue to grow, as European diseases are not spread to them. However, if trading occurs between the north-eastern tribes all the way down to Central America, they will still be exposed to diseases carried by the French and British.
4) They may not be exposed to the usage of firearms as quickly, which may lead to their demise to their native enemies. Firearms, while they took very long to reload back then, was a symbol of power and was used more as a shock then as a weapon (until the mini-ball, repeater, and other upgrades to the rifle came).
5) The other way to look at it is that another European Power may take over those lands. The first of which is Portugal, whose lands were very near the Spanish territory. The next in line would be France, which borders the Spanish territories, and than Britain.
~
Hey mate
here is your answer :)
********************
The Dawes Act had a negative effect on American Indians, as it ended their communal holding of property (with crop land often being privately owned by families or clans), by which they had ensured that everyone had a home and a place in the tribe.
C have a good day freind me
