Answer: In a general sense, World War I and World War II were wars conducted on a massive scale unlike any other wars in history. They were similarly caused by nationalism, imperialism, alliances, and militarism. Both wars saw countries trying to upset the power balance in Europe for their own gain.
Explanation:
In 476 C.E. Romulus, the last of the Roman emperors in the west, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, who became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome. The order that the Roman Empire had brought to western Europe for 1000 years was no more.
The anti-federalists (i.e., Patrick henry and sam adams)
1. <span>captives and slaves</span>, and soldiers
2. Poor working conditions
3. haiti
4. collective bargaining
( I am too busy to do the rest, sorry.)
I'm a fan of historian Michael Wood! One of my favorite items from him was the BBC documentary series, "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great."
The quote you mention from Wood comes from his historical researches regarding India. (You could also look for his BBC documentary series, "The Story of India.") The "rejection of a whole way of understanding history" was the way that Wood described the actions of Asoka (or Ashoka -- you'll see both spellings). Asoka was ruler from 268 to 232 BC of lands that would later become known as India. Asoka was a great conqueror but also someone who found enlightenment through Buddhism. After conquering the Kalinga region in eastern India, rather than feeling some great rush of pride or accomplishment because of their victory, Asoka felt guilty. So he worked hard to improve the lives of the Kalinga people that he had conquered. This was what Wood was referring to when he said Asoka's attitude/approach "was a rejection of a whole way of understanding history." Conquest was not something to be celebrated triumphantly. Rather, the conquerors had an obligation to those whom they had conquered.
