All of these are defensible. Of course debt rises in war, and decreasing taxes will benefit an economy where taxes are no longer needed (post-scarcity.) Political and geographical boundaries are outmoded and a world without them is not only possible but existed for much of early human civilization. As for the government, a government would run more efficiently when everyone is in basic agreement with what to do and how.
I would question your teacher on this. Anyone can defend these perspectives...
Focusing on the inner workings of the First Crusade in a way that no other work has done, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading delves into the Crusade's organization, its finances, and the division of authority and responsibility among its leaders and their relationships with one another and with their subordinates.
In the year 1095, Pope Urban II initiated what is known today as the First Crusade. His summons of the lay knights to the faith between 1095 and 1096 was Urban II's personal response to an appeal that had reached him from eastern Christians, the Pope referred to the struggle ahead as Christ's own war, to be fought in accordance with God's will and intentions. It was, too, called a war of liberation, designed to free the church and city of Jerusalem from oppression and pillage by the Muslims while liberating western Church from the errors into which it had fallen.
In this classic work, presented here with a new introduction, one of the world's most renowned crusade historians approaches this central topic of medieval history with freshness and impeccable research. Through the vivid presentation of a wide range of European chronicles and charter collections, Jonathan Riley-Smith provides a striking illumination of crusader motives and responses and a thoughtful analysis of the mechanisms that made this expedition successful.
An Absolute monarchy is one in which the monarch has absolute control.
